LISTOF TABLES
Table1.1AppleMaximumResidueLevels(MRL)aspartpermillion (ppm)forselectedPPPinEU,USA,Chinaandinthe CodexAlimentarius16
Table5.1ActiveingredientuseperHaofArableLandandPermanent Cropsinselectedcountries(kgperha);Averageuseforthe years2000–2010110
CHAPTER1
SettingtheContext:AShortHistory ofTechnology,Toxicology andGlobalPoliticsofPesticides
Abstract Thischapterprovidesashortintroductiontothetechnologicaldevelopments,anddescribest heimportanceofagrochemicalsfor contemporaryfarming.Theuseofpe sticidesconstitutesastandard practice,sincetheyareconsiderede ssentialtoguaranteefoodsecurity. Atthesametimepesticidesraisest rongconcernsaboutfoodsafety.The chaptertracesdevelopmentsintoxicologyandshowsthatpesticides havebecomethesubjectofnumeroustestingandcontrols.Itthen introducesregulatoryissuesbyhighlightingthemostimportantglobal treaties.Finally,thechaptershow sthestringencyofEuropeanUnion (EU)provisionsforauthorisationof pesticidesandtoleranceofresidues onfoodincomparisontootherjurisdictions,payingspeci fi cattention totheUSA.
Keywords Foodsecurity Foodsafety Toxicology International standards
Theterm ‘ pesticides’ referstoavarietyofsubstancesandproductsthat accordingtotheirfunctioncanbegroupedintoherbicides,insecticides, fungicides/bactericidesandmolluscicides(meantto fi ghtagainstsnails). Alltogether,theyarealsocalledphytopharmaceuticalsor – withagentler termusedinEuropeanUnion(EU)regulation –‘ plantprotection products’ (PPPs).Itissafetoarguethatthepopularunderstandingof
©TheAuthor(s)2017
E.Bozzini, PesticidePolicyandPoliticsintheEuropeanUnion, DOI10.1007/978-3-319-52736-9_1
thetermidenti fi espesticideswithchemicalssprayedoverplantsby tractorsslowlygoingupanddowncroplandpuffi ngalightgreycloud.
Fromaregulatorypointofviewhowever,theterm ‘pesticide’ isbroader andincludes ‘anysubstanceormixtureofsubstancesintendedforpreventing,destroying,orcontrollinganypest ... causingharmduringor otherwiseinterferingwiththeproduction,processing,storage,transport, ormarketingoffood,agriculturalcommodities,woodandwoodproducts oranimalfeedstuffs’ (FAO 2014).Thismeansthat firstpesticidesinclude awiderangeofsubstances:syntheticchemicalsaswellasnaturallyoccurringtoxicsubstancesandmicroorganisms.Theyareallpartofagroupof around1,500activesubstancesvariouslycommercialisedintensofthousandsofproductsthathavebeentestedfortheireffectivenessin fighting pests(MacBean 2013).Second,pesticidesareusedacrosstheentirefood chain,fromfarmtofork,aswellasinaquaticfarming,timberindustries,to cleanpublicspaceslikeparksandroadsandinhomegardening.Inshort, thisbookisnotaboutchemicalsofrelevanceforashrinkingproportionof theEUworkforcethatisemployedinfarming.Rather,wearetalking aboutthousandsofactivesubstanceswhosepresenceisubiquitousindaily lifeforallofus.
TheuseofpesticidesgrewenormouslyafterWorldWarII,inconnectionwiththeGreenRevolution,thescience-ledprocessthatmade agrochemicalscentraltomodernfarm ing.Indeed,pesticidestogether withfertilisersandhigh-yieldvarietiesarepartofapackagethatcomprisestheagro-industrialmodeloffarmingwhichisstilldominantin Europeandelsewhereintheworld.I nthiscontext,PPPsareconsidered essentialtoprotectagriculturalpr oductionandguaranteestablefood supplies.Atthesametime,pesticides arenonethelesschemicalsdeliberatelyreleasedintotheenvironmenttokilllivingorganismsandforthis veryreasoncanhaveadverseeffect sonhumanandanimalhealth,and naturalresources.Thistensionbetweentheneedtodeliverfoodsecurity andguaranteefoodsafetyliesattheheartofpolicyandpoliticsonPPPs ineveryregulatoryregime.Thischapterprovidesashortintroductionto developmentsintechnologyandtoxicology.The fi rstsectionsketches thehistoryofpesticidesfromtheriseanddemiseofwidelyusedsubstanceslikeDDTtothecurrentdevelopmentofnewproductsthat employnanotechnology.Thechapterexploresthetensionbetween foodsecurityandfoodsafetyandplacesthegrowingrelevanceofagrochemicalsinthecontextofthe GreenRevolution.Itthenbrie fl y describesdevelopmentsintoxicologyandthecomplexassessmentsthat
arerequiredtoguaranteesafetyandminimiserisksforpublichealthand environment.Finally,thechapter introducesregulatoryactionwith areviewofinitiativesattheinternati onallevelandplaceEUprovisions inthiscontext.ItshowsthatEUregulationissigni fi cantlymorestringentthancomparablecounterparts:thenumberofauthorisedactive substancesislowerbecausehundredshavebeenputoffthemarket sincetheearly1990s,andlevelsoftoleranceforresiduesonfood areverylow.
1.1DEVELOPMENTSIN TECHNOLOGY: FROM ARSENICTO NANOTECHNOLOGY
AsHough(1998)hasperceptivelynoted,sincehumansocietiesdeveloped agriculturearound10,000yearsago,anyanimalandplantincompetition withcropshasbecomeapest.Theprotectionofyieldsfrominsectsand parasitesisvitaltoguaranteethequantity,qualityandappearancesof productions.Equallyimportantisthe fightagainstweedswhichassures thatnutrientsinthesoilandsunlightareatexclusivedisposaltocrops,so astomaximiseyields.Formillennia,cropprotectionwasperformed manually;farmersspentlonghourseradicatingunwantedplantsand triedtocontroldiseasesbyselectingresistantvarieties,rotatingcrops andadoptingparticularsowingandharvestingtechniques.Itwouldbe misleadingtosaythatuntilthemodernerafarmingwasperformedwithoutexternalchemicalinputs.Substancesthatcouldbeofhelpincontrollinginsectsandfungiwereactivelysearched,andthereisevidencethat RomanandGreekfarmersaswellasChinesealreadyusedvariationsof sulphurandarseniccompounds.Mostofthesechemicalsinthepastwere basedonmetals – arsenic,copperandlead – andoils,whichformeda physicalbarriertopestsoractedoninsectsbysuffocatingthem.Sincethe endofthenineteenthcentury,substanceswerediscoveredthanksto practicalexperience,attimesbyaccident.Forinstance,theproprietiesof averypopularpesticideusedinEuropesincetheseventeenthcentury –calledBordeauxmixture – wasdiscoveredbyafarmerwhooriginallyhad theintentiontoprotecthisvineyardfrompeoplewhoattemptedtoeat grapes,ratherthantotargetdamagingfungi.Itwasonlyintheearly twentiethcenturythatsciencebecameessentialtoagricultureandthe developmentsofnewmethodstodefendproductionsshiftedfromthe fieldtothelaboratory.Itiseasytoforgettodaytheurgencyfeltatthat
timetoemployallavailablescientificmethodstoincreaseagricultural productivity.Theepochwascharacterisedbyanenthusiasmfornew chemicalsandtheirpromisestoputanendtochronicfoodscarcity.
Theturningpointinthehistoryofpesticidescameinthelate1930swith thedevelopmentofsyntheticagrochemicalswithneurotoxicproperties.At thattime,researchfocusedontwomaincategoriesofwhatarenowoften termedconventionalchemicals,organochlorine(OC)andorganophosphate(OP).The firstcategorycomprisesfamousproductslikeDDT, aldrinanddieldrinwhichactonalargerangeofinvertebratesandatthe sametimepresentlowacutetoxicityformammals.Theyarealsovery persistent,apropertythatisinfamousnow,butthatwashighlyappreciated inthelate1940sand1950s,sinceitprolongedcontrolofinsectsovera longperiod,reducingthenumberofapplications.Thesecharacteristics –broadspectrum,lowacutetoxicityforhumansandpersistency – madeOCs aninstantsuccess.AvailabledatafromtheUSEnvironmentalProtection AgencyonthediffusionofOCsshowthatover2billionkghavebeenused overtheyearsinfarmingandpublichealth(Angelo 2013).Kinkela(2011) inhishistoryofDDT,recallstheenthusiasmforachemicalthatwas expectedtosignificantlyreducetheproblemofcroplossandputendemic malariatoanend,savingmillionsoflives.At first,pestcontrolwasvery effective.Soon,however,itbecameapparentthatOCshadseriousnegative effects.Thedangersofpersistenceintheenvironmentwere firstexposedin theearly1960sbyRachelCarson,whoinherbest-sellerSilentSpring denouncedthatDDTkillednon-targetanimalslikebirdsandthrougha processcalledmagnificationitaccumulatedinthebodiesofpredators movingupthefoodchaintomammals.Bytheearly1970s,tracesof DDThadbeenfoundinarticwildlife(whereithadneverbeenused)and inhumans(Kinkela 2011).Also,mosquitosveryquicklydevelopedresistancetochemicals,andepidemiologicaldatashowadecreasingeffectivenessinkeepingmalariaundercontrol.
Theemergingevidenceofadverseeffectsforhumansandwildlife,and thegrowingpublicconcernagainstagrochemicalandpoisonseventually ledintheearly1970stothebanofmostOCsintheUSAandmany Europeancountries. 1 Themoverepresentsalandmarkdecisionin thedevelopmentofenvironmentalandhealthprotectionpolicies,as frequentlynoted(Dryzek 2005 ;Weale 1992 ).Yet,itisofnotethat keepingOCsoffthemarketdidnotstoptheincreasinguseofPPPsin farming.Notably,sincetheintroductionofcontrolsandregulationin theearly1970s,theoveralluseofpesticideshasdoubled(Angelo 2013 ).
Thebanratherfavouredth ediffusionofothercategoriesofconventional chemicals,likecarbamates,phyretinoidsandespeciallyOPs.OPs – like parathion,malathion,chlorpyrifosandglyphosate – rapidlydegradein theenvironmentandthereforecannotbeconsideredaspersistentpollutantssuchasOCs.Yettheacutetoxicityofmanyofthesecompoundsis farhigherforhumans,andthereforetheyposeagreaterriskforfarmers whousethem.RoweDavies( 2014)highlightsasaparadoxthatthe regulatoryattentiononOCsresult edinthediffusionofcompounds whichareriskierforhumanhealth.ItmustbesaidhoweverthatoccupationalrisksassociatedwithOPswere – andinmanycontextsstillare –consideredmanageablebyregulators.Consequently,OPshavebeen authorisedacrosstheworlduntilrecently.TheEUbannedsome amongtheoldOPsdatingbacktothe1940s – notablyparathion – in theearly2000sonthebasisoftoxicityandcarcinogenicityconcerns, followedyearslaterbyUSregulato rs.MostOPs,however,arestillinuse inChinaandotherdevelopingcountries.Thisisnottosaythatworld agriculturestronglyreliesonthese ‘ oldchemicals’ .Overtimetheyhave beencomplementedbyhundredsofothercompounds:newconventionalchemicalsandmorerecentlybiologicalpesticides,biotechnologicalonesandnanopesticides. 2 Effortshavebeenespeciallydirected towardsthecreationofproductsthataremoretargeted,cost-effective andabletobreakresistancedevelopedbyweedsandpests.Forexample, manufacturersdevelopedlow-ratech emicals,sothatfarmerscanspray considerablylessactivesubstances.Lamberthetal.(2013,p.742)noted that ‘ whereasevenasrecentlyasthe1960smorethan1kgofacrop protectionchemicalwastypicallyappliedperha,todayapplicationrates canbeaslowas10g/ha,only1%ofthatformerlyrequired’ .Another relevantexamplehereisthatofneo niticonoids,anewclassofconventionalchemicalswhichwere fi rstintroducedinmarketsin1985.They cutcostssigni fi cantlysincetheydonotnecessarilyhavetobesprayed overcropsbutcanbeusedasseedtreatments:theplantwillabsorb theactivesubstancebecominglethaltoinsects.Neonicotinoidsrapidly becamethebest-sellinginsecticidesintheworld(Simon-Delsoetal. 2015),aresultalsofavouredbyrestrictionsonOPs(RoweDavis 2014).Thesecompoundsthathavelowuseratealsopromised ‘ concomitantimprovementsin environmentalimpact ’ (Lamberthetal. 2013 , p.742),thoughtheclaimhasoftenbeendisputedbyregulatorsand activists.Notably,someneonicotinoidsarecurrentlybannedintheEU becauseofconcernsabouttheireffectsonpollinators(see Section4.1 ).
Intermsofenvironmentalimpacts,themostpromisinginnovation consistsofbiopesticides.Thesearemadefromnaturalmaterials – like pheromones – andlivingorganisms – likebacteria,fungi,viruses – which areusedtocontrolpestsvianaturalmechanismslikepredation,parasitismandchemicalrelations.Itmightbeworthspecifyingthattheir naturalorigindoesnotmaketheminnocuous;indeed,theseactive substancesaretestedlikeanyotherfortheireffectsonhumanhealth andtheenvironment.Theirtoxicologicalpro fi leishoweverlessdangerousandasLamichahaneetal( 2016,p.17)noted, ‘theuseofbiopesticidesincropprotectioncanleadtode creasedlevelsofpesticideresidues infoods,resultinginlowerriskoftheconsumer ’ .Theycanplayan importantpartinIntegratedPestMan agement,thesustainableapproach topestcontrolsupportedbyFoodandAgricultureOrganization(FAO) andtheEUamongothers(see Section2.3).Researchonbiopesticidesis afast-growingareaofdevelopment,andmorethan80newbiological activesubstanceshavebeenappr ovedintheEUandmorethan200in theUSA.
Amongbiologicalpesticides,itisimportanttomentionmicroorganismsandspeci fi callythe Bacillusthuriengensis (Bt)whichisabacterium toxictosomeinsects.Itsuseisallowedinorganicfarming,whereitis normallysprayedovercrops.Itisalso ofcentralimportanceforconventionalfarmerssinceBthasbeenusedinoneofthe fi rstandmost successfulgeneticmodi fi cationsdevelopedinthe1990s.Speci fi cally, cropslikemaize,soyandcottonhavebeenmodi fi edtoincludeBtin theirgenomaandthereforetoproducealethaleffectoninsectswhoeat them.Thisinnovationwasexpectedtocutdownonpesticideuse,and indeedoneofthemainargumentstosupportGMOsinpolicydebates referstobene fi cialeffectsonbiodiversity.DatafortheUSA,whereBt cropsaccountforover80%ofplantedareas,suggestthatinsecticideuse wasat fi rstdecreasing,butsubsequentlystartedtoincreaseagain,since pestsquicklydevelopedresistance.
Inthe fi eldofbiotechnology,thesecondmostimportantdevelopmentwasherbicide-tolerantcrops.Maize,soyandcottonhavebeen modi fi edtotolerateweedkillerslike,fo rexample,glyphosate,abroadspectrumOP fi rstcommercialisedintheea rly1970s.Thismeansthat fi eldscanbesprayedwithglyphosa teandallplantsbutglyphosatetolerantcropswillbekilled. 3 Theinventionofglyphosate-tolerant maizeandsoyaboostedtheproductionandutilisationofanalready popularactivesubstance,particu larlyintheUSAandLatinAmerica
wheretheutilisationoftheseGMcropsiswidespread.IntheUSA, of fi cialdatashowsthatglyphosate-tolerantGMseedswereusedon around90%ofsoybeanand75%cornplantedacres,meaningthat glyphosaterapidlybecameoneofthemostdiffusedagrochemicalin theworld.InEurope,whereGMOsare practicallyabsent,glyphosate isstillusedasaconventionalchemicalinpreharveststage,andsales accountfor17%oftheworldmarket.
Inveryrecentyears,nanotechnologyhasenteredtheagriculturaland foodsector,openingnewpossibilitiesin fieldsasdiverseasfoodadditives, supplements, flavouringandpackaging(Cushenetal. 2012).Thepotentialfornanopesticidesisalsobeingactivelyexplored,astheypromiseto delivertargetedproductsandtoreducetheamountoftoxinssprayedon agricultural fields.Nanomaterials,however,bringnewhealthandenvironmentalrisks,sincetoxicityandexposurechangesignificantlyatthe nanoscale.Forexample,dermalabsorptionandinhalationarehigherfor nanomaterials,sincemoleculescanpassthroughcellmembranes.Risks howeverarestilllargelyunexploredand – whilethecommercialdiffusion ofnanopesticidesremainslimited – thisislikelytorapidlybecomeavery relevant(andcontentious)areaofriskregulation.
Tosummarisethecomplexdevelopmentsintheindustry,itmightbe saidthatatpresentthechemicalarsenalavailabletoEUfarmersconsistsof adecreasingnumberof ‘oldchemicals’ thathavebeeninusefordecades, complementedbynewlydiscoveredchemicalcompoundsandagrowing numberofbiologicalactivesubstances.Overtime,researchonpesticides followedageneraltrendtowardsspecialisation:moreandmoreactive substanceshavebeensynthesisedandcombinedinordertoputonthe marketthousandsofproductstargetingspecificweedsoraparticular diseaseonagivencultivarunderspecificagronomicconditions.This specialisationrefersinparticularto fivemajorcrops,namelywheat,rice, cotton,soyaandmaize,whileresearchonminor – lessprofitable – crops hasbeenratherneglected.
Asmentioned,amainfactorbehindinnovationisincreasingweedand pestresistancetowell-establishedPPPs.Thisalonerepresentsthemost seriouschallengeformanufacturers, ‘acontinuousstruggle’ inthewords ofaninterviewee.Further,tighteningofregulatoryactionhasalsobeen essentialtoputhundredsofactivesubstancesoffthemarket,particularly inEUaswillbeexplainedbelow.Assuggested,thediffusionofaspecific classofPPPs,like,forexample,neonicotinoids,isoftenfacilitatedbythe demiseofanotherclass,inlightofnewavailableevidenceonhealthand
8 PESTICIDEPOLICYANDPOLITICSINTHEEUROPEANUNION
environmentaladverseimpacts.Allconsidered,thesectorappearsvery dynamic.Notably,researchattractsconsiderableresources:accordingto theEuropeanCropProtectionAssociation(ECPA)in2014over €2billion havebeeninvestedinproductdevelopment.
Itmustbenotedthatthecreationofnewmoleculessloweddown considerablyinthelast20years.Fi rst,researchhasbecomeconsiderably moredemanding:tointroduceasinglenewactivesubstancewhich canmeetalllegislativerequirements intermsofsafetyandtheexpectationsfromfarmersabouteffectiveness,thenumberofcompounds synthesisedalmosttripledfromaround50,000in1995to140,000in 2005(Lamberthetal. 2013 ).Second,andrelated,thecostsofR&Dfor puttingonthemarketonenewactivesubstanceescalatedfroman estimated$150millionin1995toover$250millionin2005to$290 millionin2015(PhillipsMcDougall 2016 ).Risingcostsareamain factorbehindtheprocessofconcentrationthatcurrentlycharacterises themarketstructure.ThreeEuropean-basedcompanies – Bayer CropScience,SyngentaandBASF – andthreeUS-basedcompanies –Monsanto,DuPontandDowAgroSciences – areincontrolofovertwothirdoftheworldmarketforsyntheticPPPs. 4
Yet,accordingtomarketanalysis,thesectorremainshighlyprofitable forbothlargemultinationalsandsmallmanufacturers.BCCResearch (2012) – aconsultancycompany – wrotethattheglobalpesticidemarket wasvaluedat €30billionin2011and €37billionin2012.Analysesalso generallyagreeonforecastingveryhighgrowthpotentialinthecoming years.Forexample,Lucintel(2016)estimatesitwillreach €74billionby 2021,agrowthlargelydrivenbytheneedtointensifyproductivityinthe faceofdemographicandnutritionalpressuresthatputworldfoodsecurity indanger.
1.2PESTICIDESAND FOOD SECURITY
IfPPPshavebeendevelopedandincreasinglyusedovertheyearsitisbecause theyaregenerallyconsideredessentialtoavoidcroplossesanddeliverfood security.CooperandDobson(2007)listed26directbenefitsofPPPs, includingdecreasingfoodlosses,betterfoodsafetybecauseoftheelimination ofpathogens,reducedlabourandenergyuse.Farmersalsomaintainthat withoutabroadrangeofchemicaltoolsattheirdisposalto fightagainstpests, foodsupplieswillrapidlycollapse,bringingtheworldbacktoaperiodwhen theexperienceofhungerwascommon,eveninEurope.
HistoriesofagricultureoftenrecallthefaminethatsavagedIrelandin themid-nineteenthcentury.MillionsofIrishstarvedtodeathandmany moreemigratedwhen Phytophthorainfestans spreaddestroyingpotatoes, atthattimethemainstapleforaratherimpoverishedruralpopulation withlittleornoaccesstoothercrops.Thehistoricaleventmightbe rememberedasatragedyofthepastwithlittlesignificanceforourworld offoodabundance.However,itisinstrumentalforsupportingtwocontrastingaccountsofmodernfarmingandtherolethatpesticidesplayinit. Inthislight,itexposesadeepdivideinthediscoursesonhowtoguarantee foodsecuritytoaworldpopulationthatisexpectedtoapproach10billion in2050(UnitedNations 2009).
HistoricalaccountssympathetictotheGreenRevolutionrecallthe Irishtragedytomakeclearhowvulnerablefoodproductionistodiseases andhowessentialitisto fightagainstpestswithallpossiblemeans.If – the argumentgoes – starvingtodeathhasbecomeunthinkableformost(not all)peopleonplanet,5 itisbecausescientificresearchdevelopedeffective pesticides,fertilisersandhighlyproductivecropvarietiesandbecause farmersinEurope,AmericaandAsiaputthemtowork.AvailableFAO datashowthatsincethelate1940s – thecustomarystartingdateforthe GreenRevolution – globalagriculturalproductiontripled.Thismadeit possibletosustainagrowingworldpopulation – whichmorethan doubledinthesameperiodfrom3to7billion – andtolowerthecost offood,makingitaffordabletoalargershareofthepopulation.Inshort, theIrishfamineisrecalledtostresshowsuccessfulintensivefarmingbased onchemicalinputshasbeentodeliverfoodsecurity.
Intheviewofmanyobservers,todaywetendtounderestimatethe effortsneededtodeliverfoodsecurity,whichislargely – andmistakenly –takenforgranted(Conway 2012;Paarlberg 2010).Notably,thefather oftheGreenRevolution – theNobelLaureateNormanBorlaug – maintaineduntillateinhislifethat ‘consumersdon’tunderstandthecomplexitiesofre-producingtheworldfoodsupplyeachyear’ (Borlaug 2000, p.19).Forexample,expertsestimatethat – dependingoncropsandlocal conditions – between25and40%ofyieldscouldbelostannuallywithout theutilisationofchemicalpesticides(Matthews 2016),puttingfoodsuppliesatseriousrisk.Intheyearstocome,agriculturalproductionwillhave toincreaseby75%comparedtocurrentlevels(FAO 2009)tokeeppace withgrowingdemandforfooddrivenbydemographicpressuresand changesinconsumptionhabits(PopkinandNg 2006).Thedauntingtask willrequireafurther ‘sustainableintensification’ offarming(Collier 2010;
Conway 2012),andpesticidesbasedonallavailabletechnologies – from biologicalcontrolstogeneticmodificationsandnanotechnologies – must bepartofthesolutiontothepresentandfuturechallengesoffoodsecurity (Chapman 2014).
Thisviewiscontrastedbyavarietyof socialandinstitutionalactors, fromadvocatesoforganicmethodst oactivistsinvolvedinthefood sovereigntymovement.6 Suchaccountsofthehistoryofagricultureare criticaloftheGreenRevolutionan dintensivemethodsoffarming,and seetheIrishfamineasatragicexemplifi cationofthedangersofmonocultures.Largeareasofcornorsoyarea ‘greendesert ’ thatfavourthe growthofinsectswhoareattracted bythem,becausetheyhaveabundant foodavailableanddonothaveto fi ghtagainstotherspeciesofinsectsto prosper.Theseareidealconditionsforthenumberofinsectstoescalate tolevelsthataredangerousforfood production.AsAngelosummarised, ‘ monoculturescantransformpestproblemstoepidemiclevels’ (Angelo 2013,p.42).Intensivemethodsoffarming – assuccessfulastheymight havebeeninthepast – areunsustainableinthelongterm.Theyareselfdefeatingbecausechemicalinputsprogressivelyandinevitablyerodethe naturalbaseonwhichagricultureneces sarilyrelies:soilfertility,water andbiodiversity.Fromthisperspective,foodsecurityisbestdeliveredby ‘ agro-ecologicalmethods ’,basedonsmall-scale,variegatedproductions, preferablyemployingorganicmethodswhichdonotdeploynatural resources(DeSchutter 2010).AsPesticideActionNetwork(PAN) noted, ‘ highagriculturalproductivity isachievedbytrulysustainable agriculturalproductionsystemsinwhichagrochemicalinputsandenvironmentaldamageareminimised,andwherelocalpeoplecontrollocal productionusinglocalvarieties’ . 7
Thedebatebetweendifferentopt ionsandfarmingmethodsisvery livelyandbeyondthescopeofthiswork(Conway 2012;Paarlberg 2010).Itishoweverimportanttorecallthistensionbetweencompeting viewsoftheroleofpesticidesincontemporaryfarmingsinceitiscontinuouslysurfacinginregulatorydebatesintheEU.Asmentioned above,itseemssafetoarguethatmostfarmersseePPPsaspartofthe professionalequipmentandconsid ertheiruseessentialtoguarantee productivityandultimatelyfoodsec urity.Accordingly,therearefew reasonstoriskproductions(andincome)byavoidingtheuseofactive substancesthathavebeen authorisedbyregulatorsanddeclaredsafefor humanhealthandtheenvironment.Incontrasttothisview,environmentalandfoodsovereigntynon-governmentalorganisations(NGOs)
supportchemical-freeagriculturalmethods,arguingthattoaddress futurechallenges,farmersshould rediscoverhowtokeeppestsunder controlbyavarietyofmethodsandutilisechemicalsolutions ‘ as alastresortinrarecasesofheavypestinfestations ... ’ (Greenpeace 2015,p.3).Theof fi cialpositionoftheEUliesinbetween.Itrecognises that ‘PlantproductionhasaveryimportantplaceintheCommunity. Oneofthemostimportantwaysofpro tectingplantsandplantproducts againstharmfulorganisms,includ ingweeds,andofimprovingagriculturalproductionistheuseofplantprotectionproducts’ .Atthesame timetheEUhastheoverallreductionoftheuseofagrochemicalsasan of fi cialpolicygoal(see Section2.3 ),sincetheutilisationofpesticides ‘ mayinvolverisksandhazardsforhumans,animalsandtheenvironment, especiallyifplacedonthemarketwithouthavingbeenof fi ciallytested andauthorisedandifincorrectlyused’ (Regulation1107/09).
1.3PESTICIDESAND FOOD SAFETY:DEVELOPMENTS IN TOXICOLOGY
Theprevioussectiondescribedhowresearchinchemistry,biotechnology andnanotechnologieshasdriventhedevelopmentofagrowingnumberof activesubstancesemployedagainstpests.Paralleltothesedevelopments, toxicologyand – later – ecotoxicologyandendocrinologyhavebecome moreandmoresophisticatedtoassesstheconsequencesforhealthandthe environmentwiththeuseofPPPs.
TheawarenessofthecontaminationpotentialofPPPsisnowwidespreadamongscientists,regulatorsandcitizensalike,butthishasnot alwaysbeenthecase.Whensyntheticpesticideswereintroducedinthe 1940s,toxicologywasanemergingdiscipline,rapidlydisentanglingitself frompharmacology(FrankandOttoboni 2011).8 ‘Safety’ wasdefinedin narrowtermsasabsenceofacutetoxicityandtestsfocusedonamain outcome:mortality.Indeed,the firstimportantstandardsetbytoxicologistswastheso-calledMedialLethalDose(LD50),namelythelethaldose forhalfofthesampleoflaboratoryanimals.Suchknowledgeabout ‘the dosethatmakesathingapoison’– torecallthebasictenetoftoxicology –wasessentialtoproviderecommendationsonsafeapplicationandmanagement.Fromthisperspective,poisoningandcontaminationwere thoughttoresultfromaccidentsornegligenceleadingtoacuteexposure ortospillageintheenvironment.
Overtimetheeffortsoftoxicologistsallowedforthedevelopmentof moresophisticatedmethodsandstandardstoassessavarietyofadverse effectsofchemicals,creatingthecurrent ‘alphabetsoup’ thatincludesNo ObservedAdverseEffectLevel(NOAEL),NoObservedEffectLevel (NOEL),AcceptableOperatorExposureLevel(AOEL),Acceptable DailyIntake(ADI)amongothers.Firstandforemost,testshighlighted thatlong-termeffectsofcorrectusagemaybeharmful.Lowexposureover aprotractedperiodmightleadtochronichealthconditionsinworkers, bystandersandresidentsofagriculturalareas.Thenegativecumulative effectsofpesticidesmightincludecancer,neurologicaldiseaseslike Parkinson’sdisease,fertilityandreproductiveeffects,chronicasthma, etc.Second,theappraisalofeffectsontheenvironmentgainedincreasing relevance.Thepoisoningofnon-targetanimals(butterflies,frogs)and beneficialinsects(beesandotherpollinators)hasbeenrecognisedasa seriousthreattotheoveralllevelofbiodiversityinagriculturalareasand ultimatelyonproductivity,asthecaseofcolonycollapsedisorderdiscussedin Chapter4 willhighlight.Further,PPPscanbeverypersistent intheenvironmentandcausepollutionofsoilandofgroundwater resources(Leu 2014;Pretty 2004).Inarecentreport,Greenpeacesummarised ‘ultimately,whatisatstakearethediverseecosystemservices, suchaspollination,naturalpestcontrol,cleaningofdrinkingwater, nutrientcyclingandsoilfertility,whichareprovidedbyafullyfunctioning andfullyfunctionalecosystem’(Greenpeace 2015,p.6).Third,inthelast 20yearsPPPshavebeenlinkedwithendocrinedisruptions,namelythe interferenceofchemicalswiththehormonesystem,openinganentirenew areaofscientificinquiry(see Section4.3).
Anadditionaltrendisworthmentioninghereforitsrelevancetopublic policy,namelytheeffortstowardsthestandardisationoftoxicologicaltests andlaboratorypracticesforregulatorypurposes.Backinthe1940sand indeedformanydecadestofollow,methodsfortestingvariedalotfrom contexttocontextandevenfromlaboratorytolaboratory.Forexample, HoughexplainsthatstudiesonDDTwerenumerousbutsomehow inconsistent,since ‘therewaslittlecontinuitylinkingonestudytoanother’ (Hough 1998).TheOECD ‘ProgramonPesticidesandSustainablePest Management’ startedin1992todevelopprotocolsforlaboratorytesting. Todaytherearearound150guidelinesontestingmethods,covering physical-chemicalproperties(likehowtodeterminewatersolubility,viscosityormeltingpoint),degradationandaccumulationintheenvironment andhealtheffects.Theexpectationisthat ‘OECD-wideaccepteddata
requirements,testguidelinesanddocumentationstandardsforcountry evaluationreportsshouldleadtomutualtrustandfullacceptanceof evaluationsbasedongoodscience’.Evenmoreambitiously,theOECD recommendstodealwithdossiersonpesticidesatagloballevel,adhering totheidealof ‘onesubstance,onetoxicologicalassessment’ .
Inshort,moderntoxicologyprogressedfromtestingacutetoxicity leadingtopoisoningandmortalitytowardstheassessmentofchronic toxicitylinkedtoalarge – andexpanding – rangeofpathologies.It seemssafetoarguethatscientificassessmentsdevelopedbyaddingcomplexityandbecomingmultidisciplinary – includinginsightsfromtoxicology,environmentalsciencesandendocrinology.
Thisoversimplifiedaccountoftoxicologyshouldnotsuggestalinear progressionofdiscoveriesleadingtoanorderlyaccumulationofevidence. Theproclamationoftheideaofgloballyvalidassessmentsdoesnotimply thattoxicologistsagreeondevelopmentsintheir field.Rather,contradictionsandcontrastsamongcompetingparadigmsaboundinthehistory ofthescientificappraisalofchemicals,whichshows ‘abackandforthof forgetting,remembering,contest,anddisagreement’ (Liboiron 2015, p.14).Somequestions,likethechoiceofendpoints,thecomparisonof differentspeciesandtheextrapolationfromanimalstudiestohumansare still fiercelydebatedtoday,asthesectiononendocrinedisruptionwill show.Also,overtimemoreandmorepreviously ‘unexpected’ effectsand modesofactionofchemicalshavebeendiscovered,althoughcontroversiesarisesinceattributionofcausalityisdifficultincomplexecosystems.As Enserinketal.wrote(2013,p.728), ‘scientistsaremakingstridesin preciselyunderstandingtheeffectsofthechemicalsnowinourarsenal, includingthemyriadwaysinwhichtheyarebrokendownintheenvironmentandtheharmtheycausetowildlife’ .
Developmentsintoxicologyareex tremelyrelevantsincetheyare intertwinedwithregulatoryproce sses.Itwouldbemisleadingtosuggestthatdevelopmentsinregulationmirrorthoseinscience,orto expectthatdiscoveriesofnewrisk stranslatedirectlyintopolicy. However,ingeneralterms,pesticid eregulationspresentatrendfrom basictoextremelycomplex,basedo nincreasedawarenessandrecognitionofanexpandingrangeofpotentialadverseeffectsofchemicals. Notably,the fi rstlawsintheUSAandinEuropeancountriesdidnot requireanypre-markettestingofthehealthandenvironmentaleffects ofpesticides.IntheUSA,themostrelevantprovisionintroducedby regulatorsconsistedoflegalrequirementsonlabellingandon
instructionstobegiventousers,th emaingoalbeingtominimiserisks ofmismanagement.Today,acomplexsetofregulatoryprovisions fortheauthorisation,commerci alisationanduseofpesticideis inplace.Healthandenvironmentalconcernsgainedincreasingrelevance,thoughnationaldifferences onhowtobalancefoodsecurityand safetyarehuge.Thenextsectionstar tsthisdiscussionbypresentingthe effortstoobtainglobalharmonisedrules.
1.4INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO HARMONISE PESTICIDES REGULATION
Concernabouttheeffectsofpesticideshasbeencentraltolaunchthe globalenvironmentalagendaintheearly1970s.Famously,attheUnited Nations(UN)ConferenceontheHumanEnvironmentheldin Stockholmin1972,theuseofDDThasbeendefined ‘anecocide’ . Sincethentheneedforinternationalcooperationonhealthandenvironmentalissueshasbeenwellrecognisedindozensofagreements.Itmight beaparadoxthenthatwhenitcomestopesticidesthelistofinternational agreementsisverylimited.Notably,notasingleagreementcanbefound ontheenvironmentalconsequencesofPPPs.Afewagreementsandconventionsdealwithpesticidesindirectly,becauseoftheirbroaderfocuson chemicals.ThelistincludestheRotterdamConventiononthePrior InformedConsentProcedureforCertainHazardousChemicalsand PesticidesinInternationalTrade,theBaselConventiononthe TransboundaryMovementofHazardousWastesandtheirDisposal,the MontrealProtocolonSubstancesthatDepletetheOzoneLayer,which restrictedtheuseofmethylbromide – afumigant – becauseofitsozonedepletingproperties.AnotherexampleistheStockholmConventionon PersistentOrganicPollutants,whichaimstophaseout12chemicalsthat arehazardousfortheenvironment,nineofthembeingOCpesticides.
Thefocushasbeenputontradeandaspecifichealthissue,theresidueson food.Themostconsequentialinitiativeisthe ‘CodexAlimentarius Committee’,setupjointlybyFAOandWHOin1963.Theofficialremit isdouble:toprotectconsumers’ healthandtofacilitatefairpracticesinfood trade.Thesegoalswerepursuedbysettingharmonisedinternationalstandards,ameasuredeemedessentialtomakesurethatfoodisbothsafeand tradeable.Theneedtosetsafetystandardsisrecognisedforobviousreasons butdifferencesinlegalrequirementsoverfoodqualityandpesticideresidues
arealsoconsiderednon-tariffbarrierstothecorrectdevelopmentofinternationaltrade.Assuch,theyareconsideredunfaircostsimposedonexportersandanillegitimateprotectionofdomesticproductions.Overtime,the CodexAlimentariushassetguidelinesforfoodsafetyincludingstandardsfor pesticideresiduesforaround300substances.9
StandardsintheCodexAlimentariusarevoluntaryandforalongtime theyconstitutedmererecommendationsforgovernments,mainlytargetingcountrieswherecapacityforindependentriskassessmentswerelacking.In1995however,Codexstandardshavegainedanewstatusbecause theyhavebeenincludedintheWorldTradeOrganisation(WTO) AgreementonSanitaryandPhytosanitarymeasures(SPSAgreement). Thishasbeenaconsequentialmove: ‘itmeansthatCodexstandardsare consideredscientificallyjustifiedandareacceptedasbenchmarksagainst whichnationalmeasuresandregulationareevaluated’ (FAOandWHO 2016,p.43).WhereastheSPSagreementallowscountriestoadopt independentdomesticstandardstoguaranteethelevelofhealthand environmentalprotectiontheydeemthemostappropriatefortheircitizens,italsorequiresWTOmemberstobasefoodsafetyrulesonscience, toavoidrisksofprotectionism.ThelinkbetweentheCodexandtheSPS Agreementhastwoimportantimplications.First,domesticprovisions basedontheCodexarepresumedtomeetthetermsestablishedby WTOrules,meaningthatsuchprovisionsarenotregardedastradedistortingandthereforeshouldnotbechallengedindisputes.Second,and related,ifacountrydecidestoadoptstrictercriteriathanthoseestablished bytheCodex,itmighthavetoprovideascience-basedjustification ‘demonstratingthattherelevantinternationalstandardwouldnotresult inthelevelofhealthprotectionthecountryconsideredappropriate’ . Currentlythereare44disputesaboutSPS,adisproportionatenumberof theminvolvingtheEUforitsadoptionofhighlyrestrictivestandards (YoungandHolmes 2006).Famousexamplesoflegalcasesintherealm offoodsafetyincludethebanofhormonesinbeef,thecontroversyover theEUbanonGMOs,thechlorinatedchicken,tonameEU/UScontroversiesonly(Peel 2010).Ofinteresthere,itmustbenotedthatnoneof the44legalcasesrefertopesticideresidues,despiteseveral ‘specifictrade concerns’ raisedbyChina,Ecuador,Brazilandothers.IntheEU, MaximumResidueLevels(MRL)criteriahavebeensetbyRegulation 396/2005whichprescribesverystrictsafetyfactorstobeincludedto protectvulnerablegroups(likechildrenandpregnantwomen)andmore generallytoassureahighlevelofprotection.
AsawaytoillustrateboththedifferencesinstandardsandthestringencyofEUlimits,the Table1.1 belowreportsMRLauthorisedin differentcontextsforanumberofactivesubstancesmostusedinapple farming. 10 FortheEU,thetablealsoreportsthestatus(approveduntil (201X)/non-approved)ofeachactivesubstance.
Asshown,inmostcasesdifferencesarestriking,withEUrequirements consistentlysetatlowerlevelsoftolerancecomparedtoothercountries andtheCodexAlimentarius.
SinceMRLsapplytodomesticandimportedfoodsalike,regulatory divergencesanddifferencesintolerancestronglyaffectinternationaltrade. Indeed, ‘countriesroutinelyrejectcropscontainingpesticideresiduelevels abovetheirnationalMRLvaluesorwhenMRLsareabsent,evenifCodex MRLhavebeenestablished’ (Handfordetal. 2015).Amongthesubstancesreportedinthetableabove,itisworthpayingattentionto Diphenylamine(DPA),anantioxidantwidelyusedtoprotectfruitsduring storage.DPAhasbeenbannedasanactivesubstanceinEUsince2012 andverylowresiduelevelsaretoleratedbecauseofalackofconvincing dataonsafety.TheEUbanopenedacontroversywiththeUSA,where tracesofDPAhavebeenfoundbytheUSDAonover80%ofapplessold withanaverageconcentrationof0.43ppm(USDA 2012),wellbelowUS tolerancelevelsbutlargelyaboveEUones.TheUSDAcalculatedthat
Table1.1 AppleMaximumResidueLevels(MRL)aspartpermillion (ppm)forselectedPPPinEU,USA,ChinaandintheCodexAlimentarius
EUMRLUSMRLCHINA MRL Codex Alimentarius
Acetamiprid0.8(2017)10.80.8 Boscalid2(2018)322 Captan3(2018)251515
Chlorantraniliprole0.5(2024)1.2
Deltamethrin0.2(2016)0.20.10.2
Diphenylamine (DPA) 0.1Banned10510
Fenbutatinoxide2Banned1555
Pyrimethanil7(2018)14715
Thiabendazole5(2015)533
Thiacloprid0.3(2017)0.3
0.7
Ziram0.1(2017)7 5
Source:GlobalMRLDatabase;EUPesticideDatabase
limitationstoexportstoEUcountriesbecauseofDPAbanwouldcost $20milliontoUSapplegrowers.Ibrieflymentionherethiscontroversy tohighlightthatdifferencesinPPPregulationshaveimportanttrade implications,evenif – asintheDPAcase – theydonotoriginatefrom WTOdisputesandtwo-waytradeisrelativelylimited.11 Theissueisalso controversialwithdevelopingcountries,whichinmanycases finditdifficultorimpossibletoadheretoverylowEUMRL(Froman 2014).
Thatdifferencesinfoodsafetystandardsingeneralandinpesticide regulationinparticulararedif fi culttoreconcileandconducivetobitter politicalandeconomiccontrovers iesisapparentbytheongoingEU/ USnegotiationsontheTransatlanticTradeandInvestmentPartnership (TTIP).Startedin2012andforalongtimedeemedinevitable,adealis atthetimeofwritinglookingunlikely,largelybecauseofmounting politicalandpublicoppositiononbothsides.Ofinterestinthecontext ofthisbook,itmightbesignalledthatPPPsareoneoftheareasunder discussionwherelittleprogresshasbeenmade.Themandategivento DGTrademakesclearthatthepeculiaritiesofEUriskregulation system – inprimis itshighlyprecautionaryapproach – shouldbemaintained.Yetmostcommentatorsandcriticsseemtoshareageneral distrustinthecapacityoftheEUtoresistUSbusinessandpolitical pressures.Forinstance,Greenpeacewarnsagainstthe ‘ TTIPnegotiations[which]areeffectivelyopeninguparacetothebottominthe nameoffreetrade ’ (Greenpeace 2016 ),withstandardsbeingrelaxedat theexpenseofsafety.
1.5THE EU INTHE GLOBAL CONTEXT
Theprevioussectionsuggestedthateffortstoharmoniseregulatorycriteria attheinternationallevelhavebeenonlypartiallysuccessful.Evenacursory analysisofnationalprovisionsrevealsthatrules,standardsandlimitsforPPPs productionandusedifferconsiderablyamongstates.Variationsrangefrom nodomesticlegislationfortheregistrationandcontrolofpesticidesina quarterofcountriesinAfricanandSouthAsianregions(Matthewsetal. 2011)toverysophisticatedregulatoryregimesliketheoneinforceinEU andtheUSA.12 Fast-growingeconomieslikeChinaintroducednewsubstantialsafetyrequirementsin2009afteryearsofpolicyinactioninthe field. Similarly,Indiaiscurrentlydiscussingnewprovisionsfortheassessmentand placingonthemarketofPPPs(Handfordetal. 2015).Indeed,atypical claimadvancedbyindustryrepresentativesreferstotheproliferationof
independentstandardsadoptedbyanincreasingnumberofdevelopingand transitioncountries,aswellasbigretailersandthefoodindustry.
ToputtheEUPPPsectorinperspective,IwillcontrasttheEUand USregimes.Theyare ‘ greengiants’ (VigandFaure 2004 ),withmature, highlyproductiveagriculturalsectorswhicharestronglyintegratedin worldagriculturalmarkets.Theyarebothimportersandexportersof agriculturalandfoodproducts,andforthisreasonthestandardsadopted intheUSAandEuropearehighlyrelevantforothercountries.Asnoted, producersindevelopingcountriesoftenhavetoadapttoEUorUS regulatoryprovisionstogainacce sstotheselucrativemarkets.The trajectoriesofpesticideregulat ionarethereforeofutmostglobal importance.
Indeed,thecomparisonbetweenUSAandEUhasattractedtheattentionofscholarsworkingonthebroaderthemeofriskregulation,startinga livelydebateonwhichregimeismoreprecautionary.Vogel(2012)noted thatatpresenttheEUregulatoryregimesforhealth,consumersand environmentalrisksaremoreprecautionarythantheUSonesandthat theyareincreasinglydivergent.Thisresultsfromashiftinthedirection takenbyregulatorsinthetwocontexts.TheUSAhashadfordecadesavery precautionaryapproachtofoodsafety,assuredbytheso-calledDelaney clausethatprohibitedtheuseofanyfoodadditivefoundtobelinkedto cancer(Bosso 1988).OfinteresttoPPP,itmeanszerotolerancefor residuesofcarcinogenicsubstances.ArguablytheUSregimehasbecome lessstringentfromthemid-1990s,whentheDelaneyclausewasrepealed andcost-benefitconsiderationshavebeengivenpriorityinriskassessment procedures(see Section2.2).InEurope,areversetrendcanbeobserved: policyprovisionsbecameincreasinglycautiousinthelast25years:growing publicpressuresfor ‘zero-tolerance’,andthechangeincriteriausedby policy-makersonhowtorespondtorisksfavouredthisresult(Vogel 2012).TodayinBrusselsthegeneralopinionemergingfrominterviews withinstitutionalactorsandstakeholdersalikeseemslargelyinlinewith Vogel’sargument:theEUismorecautiousinregulatingenvironmental andhealth-relatedrisks.Specifictopesticiderisks,thecurrentregulation adoptedin2009ontheauthorisationofPPPsislikelytobethestrictestin theworld.
Thisanalysishoweveriscontested. SomescholarssuggestthatEUand USriskregulationstandardsaremo resimilarthanusuallysupposed (Wiener 2004, 2011 ).TheEUisnotmoreprecautionaryinabsolute terms:itdependsontheissueunderexamination.Forexample,EU
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
The story is ostensibly the journal of a working man. He was not always thus, this son of the idle rich, of New England birth, who had lived fifty years of inactivity, addicted to theoretical speculations of a critical and analytical nature, when the European war broke out. The war brings him a sudden realization that he has been but a looker-on in life, has not been a good citizen, not in immediate touch and sympathy with his fellow men. He must act, must become a worker, must undertake a handicraft. He chooses cobbling, settles in a typical New England coast town, and gradually works himself into the confidence of his fellow townsmen and into local influence. His journal records his experiences, is full of philosophical criticism of American life and character in general, of the flaws in our democracy, of our attitude to the war before our entry into it and of the imminence of a regenerated world after the war. Our actual participation in the war fills him with satisfaction and pride and the hope of future greatness.
Booklist 17:119 D ’20
“Of the high earnestness of her mood there are visible manifestations. The delicate play of humor which we have so often noted in her work is absent. The poetic trend of her prose has been almost as ruthlessly stifled. Yet in spite of the handicap of abandoning two of her largest assets, the spell of the book is very strong. Miss Sherwood here as in ‘The worn doorstep’ has lived up to the magnitude of her opportunities.” D. L. Mann
Boston Transcript p8 O 16 ’20 1250w
Cleveland p105 D ’20 40w
“The cobbler of Mataquoit is a good thinker. He thinks through his problems, whether they be of government, economics, education, religion or sociology. He is, moreover, the master of a high style which sounds the tocsin of hope for literature in America once again.”
N Y Times p23 N 14 ’20 460w
Outlook 126:515 N 17 ’20 60w
“Miss Sherwood has genuine literary power, and whatever she writes is worth reading from the point of view of style as well as for its subject. Miss Sherwood has spiritual insight and, looking through her eyes, we have at least a vision of how the new world should be built.”
Springf’d Republican p12 O 20 ’20 240w
Springf’d Republican p8 D 9 ’20 360w
SHESTOV, LEO. All things are possible. *$2 McBride 891.7 21–480
In this collection of aphorisms the author delivers himself of his reflections on life and literature. The work is translated from the Russian by S. S. Koteliansky and has a foreword by D. H. Lawrence, who sees in Shestov the final liberating struggle of the Russian
psyche to shake itself free from the bondage of an alien European civilization.
“There is much that is brilliant in the book, much that is even profound. Moreover, if Hamlin Garland is right in reproaching this part of the United States with being ‘hopelessly sane, ’ its influence here might be salutary. But we wonder whether a native of Iowa could be cajoled into reading beyond the first two pages. Nevertheless it is well now and then to face a defiant arraignment of the entire fabric of our civilization.” C. M. S.
Grinnell R 16:309 D ’20 350w
Reviewed by Stark Young
Nation 111:693 D 15 ’20 450w
“His style is clear, uncollegiate and literary.” B: de Casseres
N Y Times p19 O 3 ’20 1000w
“In any proper sense of the word there is not an atom of originality in the book, which is merely a decoction from Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche. To exalt Shestov as original, or as in any sense a philosopher, is mischievous nonsense. He is interesting as an illustration of the Slavonic nihilism which is capturing the fancy of so many of our half-educated modern youths.”
Review 3:273 S 29 ’20 400w
Springf’d Republican p10 Ja 7 ’21 540w
SHOWALTER,
NOAH
DAVID. Handbook for rural
school officers. (Riverside textbooks in education) il *$2 Houghton 379.17
20–10062
The object of the book is to stimulate the rural school officers’ interest in education. The information given is based on personal investigation of the best plans, methods and practices now in use in the best rural communities of the United States. The foreword is a creed of nine paragraphs for the school trustee or director and the ground covered in the text takes in school organization, election and work of officers, resources and finances; school sites, plants, furnishings, apparatus and decorations; selection of teachers; the daily program, home and school cooperation, and supervision; the consolidation of rural schools; manual training and home economics; the question of lunches, health education and medical inspection, and, lastly, citizenship. There are also illustrations, appendices and an index. Booklist 17:15 O ’20 El School J 21:154 O ’20 310w School R 28:554 S ’20 210w
SHUGRUE, MARTIN JOSEPH.[2] Problems in foreign exchange. *$2 Appleton 332.45
The principles and methods of foreign exchange are briefly described in the introduction to the book which falls into three parts. Part 1 consists of typical problems and solutions fully worked out. Part 2 sets problems for the student to work out. They come under the headings; Sources of supply and demand; Par of exchange; Theory of foreign exchange rates; Conversions in foreign exchange; Financing imports and exports; Arbitrage transactions and finance bills; General problems. Part 3, Appendices, contains foreign exchange documents and tables for the simplification of foreign exchange calculations.
SHUTE, HENRY AUGUSTUS. Real diary of the worst farmer. il *$1.75 (1½c) Houghton 817
20–7300
The diary begins with March 10, the appearance of the first bluebird, and gives a delightfully humorous account of all the haps and mishaps of an amateur farmer’s summer, until the reader takes leave of him on November 21, meditating before his empty pork barrel he still had his pork barrel left after the pigs, reared with so much effort, expense and expectation, turned out to have been tubercular. He consoles himself with characteristic optimism, that, in spite of a pile of unreceipted grain bills and other debts, he now has before him the satisfying winter pleasures of milking, bedding, feeding and caring for his stock twice a day by lantern light. The book is dedicated to amateur farmers, particularly to professional and salaried men, whose love of the soil and of domestic animals takes them to the country not for the money profit that may result, but for the interest in the life for its own sake.
Booklist 17:74 N ’20
“Professionally I am inclined to condemn the book as a piece of deliberate manufacture by a man who knows too well that he is expected to be funny; personally I like it very well indeed.” W. A. Dyer
Bookm 51:686 Ag ’20 650w
“‘The worst farmer’ satisfies all expectations with its dry wit and skilfully woven humor.”
Boston Transcript p4 Je 9 ’20 460w
Cleveland p72 Ag ’20 50w
“The book is amusing in its way, and no doubt many amateur farmers will find their own experiences more or less accurately reflected in this ‘Real diary of the worst farmer.’”
N Y Times 25:236 My 9 ’20 450w
Outlook 125:125 My 19 ’20 50w
St Louis 18:228 S ’20 20w
“Aside from the humor of the book one finds the author a genuine nature lover.”
Springf’d Republican p6 My 24 ’20 370w
SIDGWICK, CECILY (ULLMANN) (MRS ALFRED SIDGWICK), and GARSTIN, CROSBIE. Black knight. *$2 (2c) Holt
20–14287
When Michael Winter comes up with a jolt against the fact that his father is a swindler and a suicide he ships for Canada with not a friend to bid him farewell. But a compassionate young girl, noticing his loneliness, proffers her hand as a good-bye for England and cherishes the memory of her daring as her romance ever after. In Canada he roughs it with the roughest and plunges with the rashest and indeed makes a fortune but incurs a term of prison in the bargain. Free again and rich he arrives in Paris in time to rescue his unknown friend from the clutches of a wicked aunt. They marry first and he pays the piper after, to settle his own and his father’s score, and there is an interrupted honeymoon, with a happy ending.
Ath p410 S 24 ’20 200w
Boston Transcript p6 N 3 ’20 150w
“The workmanship of the novel bears intrinsic evidence of its subdivision of labour. The Canadian scene is sketched with descriptive vigour, and enlivened with incident. Mrs Sidgwick, however, scarcely qualifies with her entries.” L. B.
Freeman 2:165 O 27 ’20 210w
“The collaboration is only a juncture of opposites and not a mixture of complementary elements. In short, however faithful and interesting a collection of adventures the two authors may have chronicled, however successful they may have been in parts, as a unified whole their book fails because of a lack of unity in construction, in style, in character and in place.”
N Y Times p27 S 12 ’20 210w
“Life on the great wheat ranch, in lumber camps, and in other more conventional scenes is described with vigor, knowledge, and a certain robust sense of fun. The book holds the attention firmly.”
Outlook 126:201 S 29 ’20 100w
“Having been given the first innings Mr Crosbie Garstin has scored so fast and freely that the sequel inevitably partakes of the nature of an anti-climax.”
Spec 125:861 D 25 ’20 500w
“A live and busy story.”
A book of nonsense verse, with drawings by John Nash. It is published “with an introduction about the verses by G. K. Chesterton and an introduction about the drawings by Max Beerbohm and something about all concerned by Cecil Palmer” and is edited by Paul Nash.
“Introductions, nonsense verses, and pictures are all alike absurd and equally delightful.”
Ath p986 O 3 ’19 100w
“Nonsense in its finer form will be found in the illustrations more frequently and more definitely than in the text. Captain Sieveking’s verses have got extremely pleasant qualities; some of the poems that he calls ‘examples of blatant naughtiness’ have a real charm of idea; but he is not sufficiently severe, and allows himself to go on writing when the humor of the idea has already been sufficiently illustrated.”
R. E. Roberts
“There is not quite enough of this book that is its only flaw.”
SIMONDS, FRANK HERBERT. History of the world war. 5v v 4–5 il ea *$5 Doubleday 940.3
v 4–5 “The fourth volume of Mr Simonds’ ‘History of the world war ’ is concerned with the crucial developments of the year 1917 the German retreat to the Hindenburg line, the entry of America into the war, the Russian revolution and the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the French and British offensives and reverses on the western front, the Italian defeat, and the aggressive submarine campaign on the part of Germany.” (R of Rs F ’20) “The fifth volume marks the culmination of his account of the allied campaigns. He tells with dramatic vividness the full story of American participation.” (R of Rs S ’20)
Booklist 16:276 My ’20 (Review of v 4)
“Here again we have, possibly displayed better than elsewhere, his fine sense of historical proportion, his superlatively dramatic style garnishing the most prosaic scientific manoeuvers, if important, with all the color of romance. He has taken critical advantage of the books by German military men published since the war. ” Walter Littlefield
N Y Times p6 D 19 ’20 380w
“The author’s running comment and interpretation are most illuminating and instructive.”
R of Rs 61:220 F ’20 160w (Review of v 4)
R of Rs 62:333 S ’20 180w (Review of v 5)
WILLIAM SOWDEN,
and HENDRICK, BURTON JESSE. Victory at sea. il
*$5 (4c) Doubleday 940.45
20–18578
This is not a complete history of the operations of our naval forces during the great war, but an account of the submarine campaign and the means by which it was defeated. Little or nothing was made public of the anti-submarine exploits at the time of their happening owing to the necessity for secrecy. Contents: When Germany was winning the war; The return of the Mayflower; The adoption of the convoy; American destroyers in action; Decoying submarines to destruction; American college boys and subchasers; The London flagship; Submarine against submarine; The American mine barrage in the North sea; German submarines visit the American coast; Fighting submarines from the air; The navy fighting on the land; Transporting two million American soldiers to France; Appendix; Index.
“This is a very interesting book carrying with it a comprehensive and intelligent description of the submarine and anti-submarine warfare of the late war, and is by far the best yet made known to the world.”
“Among the numberless books about the war I have seen no other which is so concise and clear and which shows the march of the main events so unobscured by unessential details. From beginning to end, the reader is never left in doubt on a single point.” B. A. Fiske
N Y Times p4 O 31 ’20 2600w
“The most illuminating account of the war against the submarines which has yet appeared. It is a thrilling narrative, and we advise everybody to read it.” Spec 125:815 D 18 ’20 1850w
“It is in the highest degree authoritative.”
The Times [London] Lit Sup p847 D 16 ’20 2100w
“The telling of this story is so attractive that the book ought to have a wide popularity.” W: O. Stevens
Yale R n s 10:437 Ja ’21 180w
A story of Puget Sound. Jack MacRae comes home from the war to find his father dying. In a letter left to his son the father tells the story of his youth and explains the reasons for his hatred of Horace Gower. Jack also learns that he has been robbed of his inheritance by Gower, and adding his father’s grievances to his own, he sets out to compete with the rich man in the salmon industry. As an independent buyer for his friend, Stubby Abbott, a rival canner, he makes inroads on Gower’s business and soon merits the magnate’s open hostility. In the meantime Jack has fallen in love with Betty Gower and the working out of the story involves the old tangle of youthful love thwarted by family disapproval, which in the end is triumphantly overridden.
Booklist 17:119 D ’20
“As a student of character, Mr Sinclair is rather clever than profound. His interest lies primarily in the story he is telling and not in its setting, and, fortunately, he has the power to make us follow that story so keenly that only here and there do we miss the background.”
E. A. W.
Boston Transcript p4 O 20 ’20 600w
“In the telling Mr Sinclair has revealed a strange mental combination of psychologist, economist and artist. Nevertheless, ‘Poor man ’ s rock’ is an interesting story of an interesting phase of American endeavor.”
N Y Evening Post p21 O 23 ’20 220w
“This is by far Mr Sinclair’s best novel. There is a great deal in it that is worth while, and every page is real. The theme is handled with such a blending of strength and beauty that it falls wide of the mark of maudlin sentimentality.”
N Y Times p26 Ja 9 ’21 520w
“Altogether the novel is a strong piece of writing.”
Outlook 126:558 N 24 ’20 70w
“Taken all in all, it’s a story that moves rapidly and with a lift straight to the end.” L. M. Harbeson
Pub W 98:660 S 18 ’20 280w
SINCLAIR, MAY. Romantic. *$2 (4c) Macmillan
20–18389
This story of the first weeks of the war in Belgium is a psychological study of cowardice. At the opening of the story Charlotte Redhead has just broken off an episodic love affair with Gibson Herbert, her employer. The qualities that attract her in John Conway are his apparent cleanness and strength. The two work together as farm laborers for a year, maintaining a very satisfactory relationship on platonic terms. With the beginning of the war they go out, in company with two others, as an ambulance corps. And here under danger Charlotte sees John go to pieces. He welcomes the idea of danger and death, but turns tail at the reality, and at the same time develops a strain of cruelty. Charlotte gives in to the truth
slowly and it is only after he has been killed, when a psycho-analytic doctor gives her the key, that she comes to understand, and so forgive, his weakness.
“It is not possible to doubt the sincerity of Miss Sinclair’s intentions. She is a devoted writer of established reputation. What we do deplore is that she has allowed her love of writing to suffer the eclipse of psycho-analysis.” K. M.
Ath p552 O 22 ’20 860w
“Into ‘The romantic,’ which for its greater part is scarcely anything more than a sketchy record of war-time incident, Miss Sinclair has put a curious jumble of pseudo science and pretentious psychology.”
Boston Transcript p4 O 20 ’20 1400w
“In ‘The romantic’ the psycho-analytic purpose stands out like a framework. It is a semi-scientific study rather than a novel, missing almost entirely the effect of mixed, unguided, concrete life which belongs to fiction.” C. M. Rourke
Freeman 2:429 Ja 12 ’21 450w
“Her Charlotte Redhead is new and authentic both as a type and as an individual. The implications of Miss Sinclair’s fable and analysis are of the broadest significance. It is these implications that give Miss Sinclair’s book an extraordinary intellectual suppleness and strength.”
Nation 111:567 N 17 ’20 600w
“A more difficult subject than this one which Miss Sinclair has chosen it would be almost impossible to find. And she has treated it sanely, admirably, with a certain clean honesty which renders it void of offense. ‘The romantic’ is a most unusual and most noteworthy book.” L. M. Field
N Y Times p10 O 17 ’20 1100w
“The story in all its poignant brevity has that assured touch of artistry which we have a right to expect from the author of ‘The divine fire.’” F: T. Cooper
Pub W 98:657 S 18 ’20 420w
Reviewed by H. W. Boynton
Review 3:650 D 29 ’20 660w
“The book is a notable achievement in psychoanalysis, and Miss Sinclair is to be congratulated on the close study of character which she has given us. ”
Spec 125:641 N 13 ’20 640w
“‘The romantic’ is a rather curious book in that it is written almost spontaneously according to fixed theory. Its mechanism is flawless.”
Springf’d Republican p7a D 12 ’20 500w
The Times [London] Lit Sup p666 O 14 ’20 620w
