28 Agricultural Harm to the Environment
chronic effects, such as in cancer causation, weak monitoring systems, and misdi-
agnoses by doctors.^18 For these reasons, it is very difficult to say exactly how many
people are affected by pesticides each year. According to voluntary reporting to
government, one to two hundred incidents occur each year in the UK.^19 However,
a recent government survey of 2000 pesticide users found that 5 per cent reported
at least one symptom in the past year and about which they had consulted a doc-
tor, and a further 10 per cent had been affected, mostly by headaches, but had not
consulted a doctor, incurring annual costs of about £1 million. Chronic health haz-
ards associated with pesticides are even more difficult to assess. Pesticides are ingested
via food and water, and these represent some risk to the public. With current scien-
tific knowledge, it is impossible to state categorically whether or not certain pesti-
cides play a role in cancer causation. Other serious health problems arising from
agriculture are foodborne illnesses, antibiotic resistance and BSE-CJD.^20
These external costs of UK agriculture are alarming. They should call into
question what we mean by efficiency. Farming receives £3 billion of public subsi-
dies each year, yet causes another £1½ billion of costs elsewhere in the economy. If
we had no alternatives, then we would have to accept these costs. But, in every
case, there are choices. Pesticides do not have to get into water. Indeed, they do not
need to be used at all in many farm systems. The pesticide market in the UK is
£500 million pounds, yet we pay £120million just to clean them out of drinking
water. We do not need farming that damages biodiversity and landscapes; we do
not need intensive livestock production that encourages infections and overuse of
antibiotics. Not all costs, though, are subject to immediate elimination with sus-
tainable methods of production. Cows will still belch methane, until animal feed
scientists find a way of amending ruminant biochemistry to prevent its emission.
But it is clear that many of these massive distortions could be removed with some
clear thinking, firm policy action and brave action by farmers.^21
The Side Effects of Intensive Food Production on Water
and Wetlands
One problem with the redesign of landscape for modern agriculture is that impor-
tant natural features and functions are lost. Watercourses and bodies are one of the
most tamed and abused features. Wetlands have been drained, rivers straightened
or hidden behind levees, aquifers mined, and rivers, lakes and seas polluted, mostly
to ensure that productive farmland is protected from harm or excessive costs. Once
again, though, the narrow view of the value of farmland for food production above
all other uses has caused secondary problems. According to the National Research
Council, 47 million hectares of wetlands in the US were drained in the past two
centuries, and 85 per cent of inland waters are now artificially controlled. This
created new farmland, to the benefit of farmers. But remove the wetlands, and the
many valued services they provide are also lost. They are habitats for biodiversity,