|
Appendix 8: The Hazards of Modern Agriculture The governments in every country have cared for their citizens very poorly by supplying food that is grown in accord with the principles of modern chemical agriculture. Such food is not only lacking in full nutrition and vitality, but is filled with harmful chemicals that poison the body over time. Even in well-developed countries, where there is plenty of food for all, there is an escalating problem of malnutrition. Malnutrition is the root cause of many diseases and results in a lack of full development and proper functioning of the physiology. Such lack leads to a myriad of other educational, social, economic and other problems. Chemical fertilizers and pesticides rob the soil of health, life, and vitality and thus produce crops that lack nutrition. These crops further contain residues from the poisonous chemicals that disrupt the normal, healthy functioning of mind and body. The following are some articles from prominent news media on the hazards of modern agriculture. These reports dramatically emphasize the need for Maharishi Vedic Organic Agriculture. (These reports are reprinted with the permission of the publisher.) India’s High Court Stops Field Trials of Biotech Cotton A petition by Dr Vandana Shiva, Director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology, was recently filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which gives citizens the right to move the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights. According to a 23 February 1999 article in Environment News Service, ‘India’s High Court Stops Field Trials of Biotech Cotton’: ‘India’s high court, the Supreme Court, today intervened on the issue of allowing trials of genetically engineered Bt cotton by companies linked to biotechnology giant Monsanto. The cotton has been altered by biotechnology to incorporate the bacterium bacillus thuringensis (Bt), a naturally occurring insecticide. The Petitioner is also seeking a moratorium on trials of the genetically engineered cotton for three to five years unless biosafety regulations are in place and until the ecological risk assessment has been carried out on a scientifically sound basis.’ The case was the first of its kind in India and it had both national and international significance. Consumers, farmers, scientists, and environmentalists worldwide are calling for more stringent regulations and even moratoriums on genetically engineered crops as a result of growing evidence of the associated hazards to health and the environment. Indian Farming Traditions Under Threat Shocking news in a 6 March 1999 article in The Tribune, India, ‘Indian Farming Traditions Under Threat’, states that many Indian farmers are being lured by the promise of wealth to buy expensive seeds every year and give up their own seeds: ‘Indian farmers have maintained a reliable and diverse seed supply over millennia. Today, the foundation of this sustainable and secure agriculture is threatened as global chemical corporations are invading the countryside, replacing agricultural diversity with vulnerable monocultures of hybrids and genetically engineered seeds, which need more pesticides and herbicides. The entire justification for opening up the seed sector to multinationals has been the supply of better, more reliable seeds, and hence higher incomes for farmers. But corporate seed is failing frequently, thus pushing farmers into debt. Last year many farmers committed suicide due to indebtedness linked to new hybrid seeds and the expensive chemical inputs.’ Due to failed crops, and expenses and hazards associated with the need for more pesticides, the rich agricultural heritage of India is being ruined. As a result, the movement against genetically modified seeds is raising a strong voice in India. The Tribune article goes on to say that in India: ‘Many agricultural festivals are celebrated with the germination of seeds. Renewal and continuity is the essence and meaning of seed. It is not the "No to GMO" that is the real strength of the Indian movement; its strength is in reclaiming farmers’ freedom by saving their varieties or indigenous seeds and conserving the cultural diversity of Indian food systems by the conservation of biological richness in agriculture.’ The Hazards of Pesticides The use of noxious pesticides in farms and orchards in the United States poses a health hazard for people and the environment, but is particularly a concern for children, who may be at special risk. Many millions of pounds of toxic pesticides are sprayed onto millions of acres of U.S. farmland and orchards every year. Often the ‘drift’ from spraying contaminates the soil, water, and nearby homes and communities. According to farm worker organizations and advocates in the U.S. (http://www.pcun. org/pesticides.html): ‘Farm workers and their children suffer from unacceptable exposure to pesticides and risks to their health. Children are not mini adults and are more vulnerable to toxic exposure. With exposure to the same amount of chemicals as an adult, children will absorb more. This is because they have much more skin surface for their size; they take in more breaths per minute; and their immune and detoxifying systems are not fully developed. Pesticides can also interfere with a child’s developing brain and nervous system.’ Pesticides are designed to be toxic. Their job is to kill or harm weeds, insects, and organisms that cause disease in plants and trees. But their effect on human life can bring health hazards, both acute and chronic, including skin rashes, systemic poisoning, cancer, birth defects, infertility, damage to the brain and nervous system, and exacerbation of conditioins such as asthma, allergies, and chemical sensitivities. In contrast, organic agriculture uses no chemical pesticides or artificial fertilizers and is therefore measurably safer for the consumer, as well as for farm workers and their families, the surrounding communities, and the environment. Diet of Chemical Toxins In a 6 January 2000 article in The Express, ‘Cocktail of Toxins in Us All’, the newspaper called for the government to review the use of hundreds of toxic chemicals widely employed in Britain. According to the article: ‘As cancer rates rise, experts fear that people are accumulating deadly cocktails of hazardous substances from the food they eat and the air they breathe. A fat sample from an adult living today contains up to 500 different chemicals, but one taken from an Egyptian mummy has virtually none. The reason is simple–most of them are man-made and have been released into the environment in the past 60 years. For this reason The Express today demands that one such dangerous chemical–the pesticide Lindane–be banned immediately. Lindane is suspected of causing cancer and has been outlawed in many European countries and even in the developing world. It is the last in a group of chemicals which is being phased out, but can still be bought and used in Britain.’ Even people eating a healthy diet of fresh vegetables, lots of fruit, and very little meat are at risk, due to the level of chemicals used in pesticides on crops. The article goes on to say: ‘Government advice is that most pesticides are not harmful because they are consumed in such low quantities. Other experts are not convinced and, worryingly, the permitted levels are often exceeded. A recent study found 29 samples of supermarket fruit and vegetables containing unacceptably large residues of pesticides. It has convinced experts like Andrew Watterson, of De Montfort University, Leicester, that no levels are safe. "There are alternatives to many of these pesticides. Why not remove them from sale while people’s lives could be at risk?"’ Pesticide
Contamination in Food Leads to According to an article in the 11 January 2000 issue of the Daily Mail (UK), ‘10 Reasons to Go Organic’: ‘Government figures suggest that up to a quarter of the foods we eat may contain detectable pesticide residues, and that around one in 100 foods contain more than the legally allowable level.’ Commissioning its own pesticide analysis by checking for residues in commonly eaten food, the Daily Mail article concludes: ‘None of the organic foods sampled in our random test had any detectable pesticides. However 20pc of the conventionally produced foods did, with multiple residues in one sample. While the amounts of such residues are usually very small, their additive effect on health is still poorly understood. For sensitive groups, such as children, choosing organic versions of staple foods must still be the safest option.’ GM Technology Could Be Out of Control A German zoologist has found evidence that could quickly alter the world’s fascination with genetically modified crops. According to a 28 May 2000 article in The Observer, ‘GM genes "jump species barrier"’: ‘A leading zoologist has found evidence that genes used to modify crops can jump the species barrier and cause bacteria to mutate, prompting fears that GM technology could pose serious health risks. A four-year study by Professor Hans-Heinrich Kaatz, a respected German zoologist, found that the alien gene used to modify oilseed rape had transferred to bacteria living inside the guts of honey bees. The research–which has yet to be published and has not been reviewed by fellow scientists–is highly significant because it suggests that all types of bacteria could become contaminated by genes used in genetically modified technology, including those that live inside the human digestive system. If this happened, it could have an impact on the bacteria’s vital role in helping the human body fight disease, aid digestion, and facilitate blood clotting. Agriculture Minister Nick Brown, who was yesterday advising farmers who have accidentally grown contaminated GM oilseed rape in Britain to rip up their crops, confirmed the potential significance of Kaatz’s research. He said:"If this is true, then it would be very serious."’ Although Professor Kaatz’s research has yet to be published, other scientists are already openly supporting his findings. The Observer article goes on to quote a geneticist: ‘Dr Mae-Wan Ho, geneticist at Open University and critic of GM technology, has no doubts about the dangers. She said: "These findings are very worrying and provide the first real evidence of what many have feared. Everybody is keen to exploit GM technology, but nobody is looking at the risk of horizontal gene transfer. We are playing about with genetic structures that existed for millions of years and the experiment is running out of control." One of the biggest concerns is if the antibiotic resistant gene used in some GM crops crossed over to bacteria. In response to this concern, Dr Mae-Wan Ho replied: "If this happened it would leave us unable to treat major illnesses like meningitis and E coli."’ Pesticide Levels in Food Dangerous for Infants In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences in the United States determined from a five-year study that the government standards for pesticides in food did not take into account any special considerations or protective measures for infants. While food may pass a federal pesticide standard, these standards do not allow for the unique vulnerability of infants. Consequently, the Environmental Protection Agency allows infants and children to consume food where no special standard has been adopted for their unique needs. Just as children and infants require special dosage requirements for prescription drugs, they also require special standards to limit the amount of pesticides in food, as their nervous systems react uniquely to drugs and toxic substances. According to a study on pesticide contamination of baby food conducted by the Environmental Working Group of Washington, DC (info@ewg.org): ‘Sixteen pesticides were detected in the eight baby foods tested, including three probable human carcinogens, five possible human carcinogens, eight neurotoxins, five pesticides that disrupt the normal functioning of the hormone system, and five pesticides that are categorized as oral toxicity category one, the most toxic designation.’ The analytical methods used for testing for pesticides were the same as those used by the Food and Drug Administration (USA). The Environmental Working Group goes on to say that: ‘Every respected, objective review of pesticide safety standards has concluded that infants and children need more protection, not less protection from pesticides in food and water (NRC 1993, WHO 1986, McConnell 1992). While baby food appears to have lower levels of pesticides in it than fresh fruit and vegetables, it still contains residues of pesticides at levels that have not been shown to be safe for infants.’ Chemical Pesticide ‘Lindane’ Banned An insecticide called ‘Lindane’ (or Gamma HCH), one of the oldest and most dangerous pesticides, which has been associated with cancer, blood disorders, and damage to the immune system, is still abeing sprayed on fields in the UK, and can be found in flea and insect sprays and wood preservatives. It can also be used on humans to treat head lice and scabies. According to a 6 January 2000 article in The Express, ‘Pop into your local DIY to buy the danger chemical’: ‘Fourteen countries have banned Lindane for all uses. A further 16 have severely restricted its use. Its safety is now being reviewed by the European Union. It was developed 50 years ago, long before rigorous standards were introduced for the licensing of pesticides. The British Government banned its use in seed treatment last June because of fears that workers’ health may be at risk. But it can still be used for a variety of purposes in this country. Yet scientists believe it could penetrate the placenta barrier in pregnant women, causing severe defects in babies. And there is now mounting concern that Lindane causes breast cancer because it mimics the female hormone oestrogen. The chemical cannot be flushed out of the body and accumulates in fat. Each week about 300 British women die from this disease.’ Lindane has been classified by the World Health Organization as a ‘possible human carcinogen’. The ‘Green Revolution’ Gives Rise to the ‘Organic Revolution’ The ‘Green Revolution’ of the 1950s to the mid-eighties was a global effort to bring Western agricultural techniques, as well as high-yielding cereals, to parts of Africa, South America, and Asia. Although grain production in the world increased during that time, segments of the world’s population continued to starve, the economics of developing countries became dependent on agro-chemical multinationals, and new varieties of grain warranted enormous amounts of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, leading to environmental concerns and soil degradation as well as ill health in consumers, and farmers and their families. A 1992 United Nations’ report indicated that mineral and vitamin deficiencies which lead to serious diseases could be directly linked to increased consumption of crops from this Green Revolution. According to a 30 March 1996 article in New Scientist magazine, ‘Hungry for a New Revolution’: ‘The cycle works like this. Deficiencies in certain vitamins and minerals sap people’s ability to resist infection and their capacity to do manual work. Those two factors alone can wreck a country’s chances of progressing towards sustainable economic growth and having a healthy, long-lived population. But perhaps even more importantly, deficiencies strike at one of the major forces that drive progress–intellectual resources. Improving primary school education is one of the most efficient ways to fuel a country’s advancement, but that opportunity can be wasted on children who are lacking certain key vitamins and minerals, because they may simply be incapable of learning.’ This shows that the rising need and demand for organic agriculture is crucial not only in developed countries, but also–perhaps especially–in developing nations. Chemicals Poison Unborn Babies In 1929, PCB’s–polychlorinated biphenyls–were made commercially and utilized around the world for such products as electricity transformers. Now, 70 years later, negotiations are underway to ban production worldwide. The reason? Evidence has come to light that PCB’s have been leaking into water supplies and contaminating food. The result? According to a 11 February 2000 article in The Express, ‘Poisons that threaten even unborn babies’: ‘The safest place in the world for a baby should be its mother’s womb. But research suggests that even there it is not safe from pollution and its intelligence may be stunted by what its mother ate years ago. Scientists in Holland and the United States have shown a link between a child’s intellectual development and its mother’s long-term exposure to man-made chemicals such as PCB’s and dioxins. In some cases, children born to mothers with high PCB levels in their blood are up to six points down the IQ scale compared to children from less polluted parents. They may also have behavioural problems or be more prone to infections because their immune system is weaker. The effects have been proved to last at least until the children are 11 and scientists are waiting to discover whether the gender-bending chemicals affect sexual development.’ It was in the 1960s that it was first realized that PCB’s were leaking. Some countries have been slow to respond, and in other countries PCB’s are still being manufactured. The UK stopped production of PCB’s twenty years ago and will dispose of any remaining PCB’s by 2001; Europe will dispose of their remaining PCB’s by the year 2010. But this startling research indicates that the damage has already been done. Resistant to heat, difficult to break down, PCB’s can survive and eventually be found in the food chain. Dioxins, also man-made chemicals, are a serious threat to health as well. The Express article goes on to say: ‘The majority of dioxins to which we are exposed are by-products of the manufacture or burning of chlorinated compounds such as pesticides, plastics, paint additives, carbonless copy paper and most clinical and municipal wastes. Liverpool University toxico-pathologist Dr Vyvyan Howard said: "Every time a house goes up in flames you have a shower of dioxins–they are pent-up poisons. Dioxins have properties which amount to a terrible triad–they are long-lasting, fat-soluble and toxic. They get deposited on land and in water. They then enter the food chain and build up in our body fat." These compounds have now spread to even the remotest corners of the world, with whales from the deepest oceans heavily contaminated. According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the dioxin TCDD is widely seen as the "most poisonous substance ever created by humankind." It is also classed as a chemical that can cause cancer in humans. Other species have greater resistance to the immediate toxic danger but the main threat is much longer term. PCB’s and dioxins can accumulate in fatty tissues, increasing in their concentration as they move up the food chain, and stay for decades. This is what poses serious concerns. Dr Howard said: "Women store up some of these toxic substances in their bodies and they can give them to their babies in high doses. The chemicals cross the placenta and build up in even greater concentrations. They reach the baby at the most critical time." All PCB’s and dioxins are classified as possible causes of cancer and are suspected of disrupting hormones. Research in two of the most industrialised countries (the United States and Taiwan) strongly suggests that this exposure is already taking its toll.’ High Tech Crops Cause Brain Malfunction According to an article in the July-September 2000 issue of Living Earth (the magazine of the Soil Association, UK), ‘Miracle crops cause brain malfunction’, a combination of high tech crops, pollution, and soil erosion are affecting the intelligence of millions of people. The article documents findings that were published in an April 2000 report by the Economic and Social Research Council, UK: ‘All over the world people are suffering from impaired intellect, and so-called Green Revolution crops are now named as one of the causes in a new report. High-yielding rice and wheat, hailed as the miracle answer to third-world famine, were introduced into countries such as India in the 1960s and 1970s, and in large areas replaced nutritious indigenous crops. Now however, these crops are being blamed for intelligence problems, because they do not contain essential brain nutrients, such as iodine, iron, and vitamin A.’ The report explains that environmentally-mediated intellectual decline can range from severe mental disabilities to ‘sub-clinical decline’ affecting entire populations. Most affected are poor countries, such as India, Poland, Brazil, and others, where soil is contaminated by heavy metals and chemicals, or crops no longer contain the nutrients they used to. Vast numbers of the population have been adversely affected: ‘Higher yielding Green Revolution crops enabled India to double its wheat crop in seven years, but these crops do not take up trace elements as well as their indigenous counterparts. So even though people may no longer be starving, their intake of key nutrients has fallen. More than half of Indian children are affected by iron deficiency, which increases the uptake of lead in children, poisoning the brain and leading to behavioural and intellectual problems. But using crops specially developed to combat these deficiencies or toxicities is not the answer. Poland grows crops that take up less heavy metals from contaminated soils. But they also take up less essential minerals, causing more intellectual impairments.’ The report suggests that poor quality contaminated food may result in humans with larger digestive systems but smaller brains, and then they state that in fact: ‘A decrease in brain size has been reported among poor communities in Brazil, over 30 years.’ As a result of the Green Revolution, developing countries and poor countries have clearly been challenged. What was once the hope for economic independence has become a hindrance: ‘When this affects whole sectors of a population, it impacts on a country’s economic ability. The World Bank states that iron, vitamin A, and iodine deficiencies reduce the GDP of developing countries by 5 per cent.’ In conclusion, the Economic and Social Research Council advises that preventive environmental health policy should prioritize the brain. Counting the Costs Excerpts from a research report published by the Soil Association. Agriculture is one of the most fundamental sectors of any national economy and the lifeblood of rural communities throughout the world. Yet, there is growing disquiet about modern methods of food production and increasingly the path of agricultural development is being questioned on environmental, social, and moral grounds. The reasons for this are well rehearsed. Agricultural policies, aided and abetted by technology and innovation, have promoted an industrialised system of farming that continues to consume large amounts of energy, encourages dependency upon inputs of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, and often abuses the biological resources it engages. It is now widely acknowledged that modern agriculture has become badly misaligned both with the ecosystem within which it operates and the society which it serves. Even among the former proponents of industrial agriculture, a consensus is emerging that we cannot afford to wait any longer to act; that we must find a way to establish sustainable systems which can meet our social and economic needs, and yet preserve the integrity of the world’s natural resources for future generations. Prevailing measures to develop and encourage such alternative systems are, however, piecemeal and inadequate. Social and environmental factors still remain a very long way from being a central part of the decision-making processes that influence agricultural policy and practice. The most powerful force to change continues to be the huge financial cost of supporting industrial agriculture. The total 1996—97 public expenditure planned for CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) schemes administered in the UK by the Intervention Board and MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food) plus other departments is £2.898.7 million (i.e. £2.9 billion). However, the cost of supporting UK agriculture during the next 12 months will actually be very much higher than this. There are, for example, the direct costs to the consumer. In 1991 it was estimated that only about one-third of agricultural support was financed directly by taxpayers, with the main burden of the CAP falling upon consumers who were paying higher prices for their foodstuffs. Although the value of this ‘consumer subsidy’ is hotly contested (and should now be declining), there remains another source of significant cost which is often dismissed–namely what economists refer to as ‘agricultural externalities’. An agricultural externality is a side-effect (or by-product) of agricultural practice which is unpriced within the economy of the farming system that causes it, but nonetheless incurs a cost for someone (or something) else by reducing their profit or welfare. The most common externalities cited are environmental, such as water and air pollution or the decline in biodiversity and aesthetic quality of landscapes. The Soil Association believes that the cost of these externalities has been overlooked for too long. Although industrial agriculture continues to denude our natural resources and to shift the burden of environmental damage onto the tax-payer, most people it seems are still content to subscribe to the notion that modern food production is economically efficient. Along with other leading environmental and animal welfare organizations, the Soil Association is committed to revealing the full costs of food production in the UK as a vital step towards the pursuit of a socially-, morally- and environmentally-sound agricultural policy for the 21st century. Sources: House of Lords (1991). Development and Future of the Common Agricultural Policy. Select Committee Report HL 79-I, HMSO, London. MAFF (1975). The Government’s Expenditure Plans 1995—96 to 1997—98: Departmental Report by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food and Intervention Board. Command Paper 2803, HMSO, London. Counting the Costs … Rough Guide It is increasingly accepted by many sectors of government and industry that the pursuit of sustainability requires account to be taken of the external costs caused by economic activity and development. These costs include: ª depreciation of natural capital through the use of non-renewable natural resources (e.g. oil and coal) or the loss of other natural assets (e.g. biodiversity and landscape); ª declines in personal or collective ‘welfare’, e.g. public health; ª cost of environmental degradation, i.e. the cost of cleaning up environmental damage; ª cost of defensive expenditure, i.e. the cost of preventive action to avoid environmental damage. The principal challenge with such ‘green accounting’ is the assignment of appropriate monetary values to the areas of external cost–whether these are financial costs (e.g. incurred in water treatment) or economic costs (e.g. due to the loss of a landscape feature valued by people). Valuing agricultural externalities is certainly still in its infancy. Identifying them is not too much of a problem, but much of the basic knowledge and research methodology needed to fully evaluate them remains to be developed. Although some external costs (especially financial) can in principle be relatively easily quantified, many others involve non-traded items and depend upon the appliance of subjective, potentially controversial, judgments of value. For example, while there is growing acceptance that farm animals have an intrinsic moral status, this status continues to be abused within intensive livestock systems in the interests of producing cheap food. The suffering and loss of welfare endured by farm animals in these production systems is therefore a significant externality which, while subsidising the price of food, is also causing a growing number of people considerable concern. Putting a cost upon the routine violation of animal welfare must therefore involve some judgement on the part of consumers in weighing up their own interests against those of the animals. But this judgement may itself be complicated by other consumer concerns about further externalities associated with the farming system; for example, water and air pollution or the quality and safety of the food products (some of these can also be evaluated in financial terms). Counting the costs of industrial agriculture is therefore potentially extremely complex. For the purpose of this paper, however, a few simple case studies have been used to illustrate the existing areas of public financial expenditure upon the regulation and abatement of the damage caused by intensive agriculture. The costings presented are indicative, not definitive. Compared to the more detailed analyses being prepared by researchers in the U.S. (next page), they only ‘scratch the surface’ by counting costs in the relatively simple terms of the nominal investment and operating costs associated with: ª research ª legislation and regulation ª monitoring and cleaning-up damage ª subsidies paid to farmers Nonetheless, they still illustrate the potentially huge external costs incurred by industrial agriculture and emphasise the need for more comprehensive data on different farming practices and systems. Sources: Hanley, N. (ed.) (1991). Farming and the Countryside: An Economic Analysis of External Costs and Benefits. CAB International, Wallingford. Department of Environment (1994). Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy. Command Paper 2426, HMSO, London. Counting
the Costs of Pesticide Use: Approximately 500,000 tons of 600 different types of pesticide are annually used in the United States at a cost of $4,100 million, including application costs. Each dollar invested in pesticide control is estimated to return savings of approximately $4 in crops saved (i.e. a total of $16,400 million in U.S. crops per year). However, this assessment is based only on direct crop returns–it does not include the indirect environmental, social, and economical effects associated with pesticide use. David Pimentel is a professor of insect ecology and agricultural sciences at Cornell University and has spent many years assessing the full costs of pesticide use in the U. S. A recent published analysis is as follows: Effects Cost US$ million/year Human health effects, including: — hospitalisation after poisoning 7 — outpatient treatment after poisoning 17 — lost work due to poisoning 2 — treatment of pesticide-induced cancer 707 — accidental fatalities 54 Domestic animal poisonings and loss of contaminated livestock products 30 Increased
control costs (i.e. more — pesticide resistance 1,400 Bee
poisoning and reduced — crop loss due to lack of pollination 200 Crop and crop product losses due to pesticide use 942 Ground-
and surface-water — cost of water treatment 500 Fishery losses 24 Wild bird losses 2,100 Government funds for pesticide-pollution control 200 TOTAL 8,123 Although conventional economic analysis would suggest that the cost of saving $16,000 million of crops is a $4,000 million annual investment in pesticide use, Pimentel’s work reveals further annual costs of over $8,000 million. Of this, approximately $3,000 million is borne by the pesticide users, while the remaining $5,000 million (i.e. $5 billion) represents the environmental and public health costs. Pimentel’s work very effectively highlights the hidden environmental and socio-economic costs of pesticide use and illustrates the kind of detailed analysis that it would be desirable to conduct both in the UK and across the whole of the EU. Source: Pimentel, D. et al. (1992). Environmental and economic costs of pesticide use, BioScience 42(10), 750—760. Case Study 1: Pesticides in Drinking Water The European Commission (EC) standard for any pesticide in drinking water, irrespective of its toxicity, is a stringent 0.1 µg/litre–the assertion being that ‘pesticides have no place in drinking water’. However, an increasing number of raw drinking water sources have pesticide concentrations in excess of the EC standard and this has triggered huge investment in treatment plants by 21 water companies in an attempt to reduce pesticide levels in the water supplied to their customers. Estimates of the total capital investment undertaken by these water companies on pesticide treatment plants since 1992 range from £799.3 million—£1,000 million. Annual running costs are also expected to rise by about 10% of capital expenditure, i.e. £79 million—£100 million/year. A further significant cost is the monitoring and analysis of pesticides in water supplies. Reliable and accurate analysis for the wide range of pesticides currently authorised requires specialist staff and complex equipment, and is therefore very expensive. Published sources suggest expenditure of at least £1 million/year for each of the 21 water companies with an identified pesticide problem, i.e. a total of £21 million/year. The estimated cost of regulating and removing pesticides from UK drinking water is therefore £121 million/year, on top of an initial investment of £1,000 million. Sources: Breach, B. and Porter, M. (1993). A Water Supplier’s View–an integrated strategy for dealing with pesticide pollution of drinking water catchments, Pesticide News 22 (December), 6—9. ENDS (1992). Pesticide removal to cost water industry £800 million, ENDS Report 206 (March), 9—10. Friends of the Earth (1993). Millions supplied with polluted drinking water–‘customers’ champion’ tries to sell them short. Press release (13 July), Friends of the Earth, London. Ofwat (1992). The Cost of Quality–A strategic assessment of the prospects for future water bills. Ofwat, Birmingham. Case Study 2: Soil Erosion Soil erosion is a major environmental and agricultural problem worldwide. The total costs of accelerated wind and water erosion in England and Wales over the short- and medium-term are conservatively estimated (at 1991 prices) in Friends of the Earth’s forthcoming review of soil erosion as between £23.8—£50.9 million/year as follows: Damage Cost £ million/year Short-term On-farm — nutrient loss and crop damage 3.8 Off-farm — damage/disruption to roads and property 3.3 — road accidents 0.1 — pollution of water courses and reservoirs 5.6—32.0 Medium-term On-farm — loss of riparian land 3.5—4.2 Off-farm — footpath repairs (not an agricultural issue) 0.5 — sedimentation of stream channels 7.0 TOTAL 23.0—50.9 Of the total costs estimated, up to £42.2 million/year are external off-farm costs which can be attributed to intensive agricultural activity. Sources: Evans, R. (1996). Soil Erosion and Its Impacts in England and Wales. Friends of the Earth Trust, London. Case Study 3: Nitrates in Drinking Water The EC maximum allowable concentration of nitrate in drinking water is 50 mg/litre. However an increasing number of raw water sources exceed this concentration and so many water companies have been forced to introduce water blending and treatment programmes. Estimates of the total capital investment involved range from £148 million—£200 million, with estimated annual running costs of £10 million/year. Agriculture is acknowledged as the main source of nitrate in drinking water and additional costs have been accrued by Government expenditure on: a) the development and implementation of the Nitrate Sensitive Area (NSA) and Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) schemes, and; b) MAFF’s research programme on nutrient losses from agriculture. Since 1989, the total cost of this nitrate control programme (including administration) in England and Wales has been £74.9 million. The annual cost of running the programme currently (1996—97) is a total of £13.4 million/year, plus an annual grant scheme for water management facilities in NVZs of £0.8 million/year. The annual (1996—97) cost of measures to control and abate the nitrate pollution of drinking water in England and Wales is therefore estimated to be over $24 million/year. This is on top of the initial investment in water treatment equipment and control measures of up to £275 million since 1989. Sources: Department of Environment (1986). Nitrate in Water: A report by the Nitrate Coordination Group. DoE Pollution Paper No. 26, HMSO, London. ENDS (1994). Farmers and water industry in tussle over nitrate zones, ENDS Report 236 (September), 32—33. ENDS (1996). Nitrate vulnerable zones designated behind schedule. ENDS Report 254 (March), 45. Friends of the Earth (1993). Millions supplied with polluted drinking water–‘customers’ champion’ tries to sell them short. Press release (13 July), Friends of the Earth, London. MAFF (1990). Ministerial Information in MAFF (MINIM) 1990. Publication No. PB 0560, MAFF Publications, London. MAFF (1992). MAFF Environment Research Strategy and Requirements Document 1992—94. Publication No. PB 0808, MAFF Publications, London. MAFF (1993). MAFF Environment Research Strategy and Requirements Document 1993—95. Publication No. PB 1217, MAFF Publications, London. MAFF (1995). The Government’s Expenditure Plans 1995—96 to 1997—98: Departmental Report by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food and Intervention Board. Command Paper 2803, HMSO, London. MAFF (1996). Memorandum of Evidence submitted by MAFF to the House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture Inquiry: ‘Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Other Schemes under the Agri-Environment Regulation’ (June 1996). Ofwat (1992). The 1990/91 Report on Capital Investment by the Water Companies in England and Wales. Ofwat, Birmingham. Conclusions Even a limited examination of the financial costs of regulating and abating the impact of intensive industrial agriculture reveals enormous expenditure, most of it out of the public purse. Inevitably, the current political focus is upon the huge cost–£1.2 billion in 1996/97–of BSE. This is equivalent to almost £60 per household in England and Wales, and is on top of the existing cost to householders and taxpayers of supporting agriculture through the CAP! As this paper demonstrates there are externalities lurking in the wings, accumulating their own hidden financial costs. Pesticides and nitrates in drinking water will alone cost the tax-payer and consumer almost £150 million this year. There are, of course, also many issues which have not been addressed in the limited space available here. The depreciation of natural capital through the loss of natural assets, such as soil or biodiversity, is one very interesting area. For example, although the external off-farm costs of soil erosion have been highlighted (Case Study 2), it is rather more difficult to place a value on the actual soil lost. The loss of agricultural productivity is one potential measure. It has been estimated that about 40% of arable land in England and Wales has lost one-quarter of its agricultural productivity, equivalent to about £680 million/year in lost crop production (1991 prices). The loss of biodiversity and changes in landscape characteristic are also significant externalities which should not be ignored. Government expenditure upon reversing the decline in biodiversity and landscape change through maintenance, enhancement, and restoration schemes (e.g. ESAs and Countryside Stewardship) provides some measure of financial cost, but the economic cost of losing a highly valued public ‘utility’ is very much more difficult to quantify accurately. Another natural asset which has arguably been squandered in intensive agriculture is antibiotics. Over 25 years ago, the Swann Committee Report on the Use of Antibiotics in Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine identified the danger of increasing bacterial resistance to antibiotics due to their parallel use in human and animal health care and advised that the use of human and veterinary antibiotics should be kept as discrete as possible. Despite this there is now emerging evidence to suggest that many of the bacteria commonly threatening human health occur due to the transfer of resistant ‘superbugs’ from farms where prophylactic antibiotic use is common. The question is–at what cost to the nation? Source: CPRE (1994). Down to Earth: Environmental Problems Associated with Soil Degradation in the English Landscape. Council for the Protection of Rural England, London. German Agriculture Goes Green CBC Newsworld Newscast, 11 January 2001 German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder says it’s time for Europe to turn away from factory farms, and get back to nature. In a response to the country’s BSE crisis, Schröder said Wednesday, ‘We have to produce what is healthy, not just what can be sold.’ He backed up his words with action, choosing a member of the Green Party (Renate Kuenast) as his new Agriculture Minister, giving her sweeping new powers: the responsibility for farming policies as well as for consumer protection and safety. Germany’s Agriculture and Health Ministers resigned (two days prior to this announcement) over accusations that they mishandled the BSE crisis. The Ministers admitted being complacent about the dangers of the disease.
A As part of a major project for its fiftieth anniversary year the Soil Association is coordinating a comprehensive research programme into the costs of modern food production systems in the UK. This will: 1. Undertake a review of the external costs of agriculture in the key areas of: Health, Environment, Social (including employment), Animal Welfare, and Developing Countries; 2. Apply appropriate mechanisms that will allow these external costs to be reflected in economic terms; 3. Propose a policy framework for agriculture that will ensure that both the real costs associated with food production are reflected in the price of food, and that public expenditure is effectively directed towards the encouragement of more benign forms of agriculture. Keep Chemicals Off Your Plate Many pesticides approved for use by the EPA were registered long before extensive research linking these chemicals to cancer and other diseases had been established. Now the EPA considers 60 percent of all herbicides, 90 percent of all fungicides, and 30 percent of all insecticides carcinogenic. A 1987 National Academy of Sciences report estimated that pesticides might cause an extra 4 million cancer cases among Americans, The bottom line is that pesticides are poisons designed to kill living organisms and can also harm humans. In addition to cancer, pesticides are implicated in birth defects, nerve damage and genetic mutations. Acres, Evaluation the Pitfalls of Chemical Fertilizers-Synthetics in Agriculture, November, 2000, pg. 11. Protect Farm Workers A National Cancer Institute study found that farmers exposed to herbicides had six times more risk than non-farmers of contracting cancer. In California, reported pesticide poisonings indicate farm workers suffer the highest rates of occupational illness in the state. Farm worker health is also a serious problem in developing nations, where pesticides use may be poorly regulated. Acres, Evaluating the Pitfalls of Chemical Fertilizers, Nov. 200, pg.11.
|