could be more understanding and helpful in the products they license for the
public to use. After all, they and the government make the decision to put these
pesticides on the market. By their very act of licensing, they are the ones who
introduce hazardous material into the environment.’’Though these comments originate from only one state, New York, in all likelihood
they are representative of the viewpoints of growers nationwide. The remarks indicate
an overall awareness of the problems surrounding pesticide use. Costs were men-
tioned several times as were the burden of regulations and the public’s misperceptions
of farm problems. Also of interest were the remarks supportive of the use of the her-
bicide atrazine, mainly on the basis of its relatively low cost. Its dangers to health, as
has been noted earlier, seem to have been ignored.A Dissenting VoiceThe remarks of a fruit grower in Arizona, unlike those of the New York farmers, seem
to overlook the possibility of long-term chronic effects of pesticide use, as he emphasizes
the benefits of safety precautions during chemical usage: ‘‘I’ve got three very, very
healthy kids and it’s sort of ludicrous to think they’re all going to die because they were
exposed to pesticides,’’ says Bill Spencer, who has spent his life raising lemons, tangelos,
and grapefruit in Yuma, Arizona. ‘‘Farmers are trained in safe application of pesticides. I
think there’s probably no more family-oriented people in the world than farmers and
they’re not about to put their children at risk.’’ Further, he says, ‘‘I don’t think the
NRDC [National Resources Defense Council, a leading environmental organization] is
aimingtheirmaterialatfarmers.Idon’tknowanystupidfarmersoutthere.’’^55
Spencer’s comments, on the whole, seem sincere. But one wonders if they would
withstand scientific scrutiny in light of information from the EPA’s Office of Toxic
Substances, to the effect that scientists estimate that everyone alive today carries
within his or her body at least 700 chemical contaminants.^56Integrated Pest Management: A MindsetThe acronym IPM (Integrated Pest Management) originated in 1967, just a few
years after Rachel Carson publishedSilent Spring, the book that unveiled the dangers
of pesticides. Today, IPM is often considered cutting edge. It is used by farmers, gov-
ernment institutions, and others who have learned over the years that chemical con-
trols have their price, including waning effectiveness due to pest resistance, high
costs, and immediate and long-term health effects to humans and ecosystems.
IPM is more a mindset or long-term strategy than a specific physical solution to
pest problems. It requires a number of steps to be taken to reach pest control goals
and to subsequently maintain their outcomes. IPM relies on common sense. The
‘‘spray and pray’’ mentality seeks to eradicate all pests—an impossible goal. IPM seeks
to eliminate the root causes of pest problems in order to reduce pest numbers to a
tolerable minimum.54 | Pesticides