Something like 30,00,000 acres of crops and pastures in Britain are annually sprayed against weeds and insect pests, and the area grows every year. Is this good or bad? Is it mere labour-saving, is it a substitute for good husbandry, or is it a genuine advance in farming methods? And what will be its effect on us all-in terms of health and welfare?
It is a fair statement that 30 per cent of our cultivated land is used to grow weeds. The eradication of charlock, for example, will often double corn yields; the stock-carrying capacity of pasture often increases by a third after the eradication of buttercup, which animals don't eat. The depredations of insect pests are enormous; a heavy toll again is taken by virus disease, transmitted by insects to such crops as sugarbeet, potatoes and strawberries. Millions of tons of food are either not produced at all because of weeds, or never reach the dining-table because insects or eelworm have destroyed them.
Today we have the knowledge to prevent much of this damage. Whole crops which before the war would have been irretrievably ruined by such pests as blackfly, greenfly, red spider or pea weevil (to mention a few) are now rescued for the consumer as a matter of routine. Farm production is nearly 50 per cent higher than before the war, to this much needed increase scientific pest control has made a sizeable contribution. I have little doubt that, with the aid of remarkable new discoveries just round the corner, and by the extension to all farms of the new proven methods, a further 15 to 25 per cent increase could be won by the control of phern and weeds alone. This is an increase, in a world of growing populations and of shrinking food surpluses in primary-producing lands such as Australia to Argentina, which we simply cannot afford to forego.
But science rarely comes to us without attendant dangers from misuse. While there are weed-killers and insecticides which are toxic only to weeds and insects, many of the most effective of the spray chemicals are highly poisonous and very dangerous to handle. In many cases the only remedy against insect pests involves making the plant itself toxic to the harmful insect, which, means the plant is toxic also to humans for a measurable period, until the weathering of the toxic residue or the plant's metabolism breaks the insecticide down into harmless substances.
Careless application of such a chemical, or worse still, the harvesting of the crop before the breaking-down process is completed, is fraught with danger to human health. The toxic effect of some spray chemicals is cumulative, insidious and most unpleasant; only the rigid application of proper precautions can prevent accidents. No chemical is sold unless its effects, and, the means of using it safely, have been worked out; the dangers arise from improper use. Serious accidents to operators have occurred. Abroad - though so far as is known not in Britain - consumers too have been poisoned, even fatally."
It might be expected, therefore, that legislative or other safeguards would be imposed to protect operators and consumers. This is so in many countries, most notably in America, where only trained operators may handle toxic chemicals, and where inspectors continually test farm produce and food for any trace of toxicity in excess of legally defined 'tolerable' limits. Anybody contravening the code of the Pure Food and Drug Administration is crushingly fined.
In Britain, although valuable work has been done by the Medical Research Council, we are still without proper legislation. The farmer or spray contractor is liable for tainted produce - but it is not easy to fix responsibility. There is no routine inspection. Anybody can buy these dangerous chemicals and use them according to the instructions on the label. The instructions are explicit - but untrained people don't always read instructions carefully, or have proper equipment. I am deeply concerned about the growing quantities of these chemicals which are being light-heartedly applied to crops by people who have little conception of the risks involved. Consumers have not yet suffered - but with every year the risk increases.
Spraying contractors are expected to agree upon a code of safety precautions which I believe gives operators and consumers full protection; 'most of them already abide by it. But the trade would be glad to see the code embodied in legislation, and the experts are all agreed that such stringent control should be imposed at least on all who treat crops for hire or reward. In addition it is hoped that progressive farmers would follow the practice of contractors, while the less educated farmers in their own interest would be wise to call in qualified contractors for those that are very poisonous.
There is no case for an outright ban on the use of these chemicals - though careless use may lead to accidents which might set up an agitation for such a ban. It is now time that these dangerous - but, in safe hands, truly life-giving - chemicals should be put out of the reach of any but experts trained to use them in a manner, and under inspection, prescribed by law.
