Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Monday, May 20, 2013

When Radical Becomes Mainstream: Part II

By Rich Kozlovich

Recently Jeff Stier and Henry I. Miller wrote an article titled; How Much Of Food Activism Is New Age, Airy-Fairy Nonsense?  I have followed their work for years, and both have done yeoman like work defeating the junk science that has become so common place.  

The article deals with food and how it is prepared; how activist want it prepared; and whether or not it matters.  But I would like to explore this at more than one level.  The title of this article is from this line in their article; “The campaign to demonize the food industry is at the same time both radical and mainstream, a recipe for trouble.”  I thought this was a great foundational line to explore the whole concept of how the radicals became mainstream in so many arenas. 

Part I dealt with food production, but all the green movements initiatives are interconnected, including the use of pesticides.   All that you know about pesticides is based on lies. Either lies of commission or lies of omission, but lies none-the-less, because in the end, their statements and claims are deliberately worded to encourage people draw false conclusions.  Every negative health claim made by them is blatantly false, which has been the pattern since Rachel Carson made that tactic so popular in her book Silent Spring with her claims regarding DDT and cancer. 

“We don’t need pesticides”!  How many times have I heard this?  I always ask the same questions.  First of all; it currently costs around 300 million dollars to bring a pesticide to market.  Initially, the costs for testing were substantially less, but it still comes down to this.  Why in the world would any company spend a dime to produce a product no one needs?  Then I ask; what would make the most frugal people (frugal doesn’t mean cheap.  It means they don’t waste) on the planet – farmers - buy a product they don’t need? 

Picture this.  Farmers are quietly sitting on the porch at the end of the day and a sales representative from Dow, or Monsanto, or Bayer, or whomever…..take your pick….comes up to them and says; “I know you don’t have a need for the chemicals I’m selling, but my boss told me I will lose my job if I don’t start selling them.  Can I count on you to buy about $100,000 worth today?”  And of course the farmers (Remember…the most frugal people on the planet!) say….. “Why sure, let me write a check right now!”   Don’t bet your life on that!  Farmers buy pesticides because they’re needed and needed desperately in order to feed the world’s hungry mouths. 

But pesticides aren't only used in agriculture.  Pesticides are used extensively in businesses and homes in order to protect the buildings, the people and their property.  Termites, carpenter ants, carpenter bees, cockroaches, rats, mice ….and…. bed bugs all infest structures.   Why have bed bugs become a national plague?  We didn’t’ have them before did we? Yes….actually we did…..all through human history bed bugs have plagued humanity until the advent of DDT.  That truly was the beginning of modern effective pest control.  

When the boys came back from WWII bed bugs were ubiquitous.  Why?  Because they were there when they left!  But now something changed.   They came back with DDT and stories of its effectiveness against insect pests.  In 1946 the answer to bed bugs was easy to use, effective, inexpensive chemistry that was readily available to the general public.  The result?  It was the first time in human history any society could rid themselves of this plague!

The greenies are fond of pointing out how bed bugs became resistant to DDT….kind of a snarky …..see, I told you so!  My answer is always the same - so what?  Resistance is the nature of nature, whether it is in plants, animals – including insects, or microorganisms. That is why new research for chemistry is needed continually. That’s like saying we shouldn’t use antibiotics because bacteria become resistant when used too frequently. So then, should we just die instead?   However, as they became resistant to DDT we shifted to two other chemical classifications known as carbamates and organophosphates; both effective even to this day.  So, if they are so effective why do we have bed bugs?  Because we no longer have them in our arsenal of tools needed to protect the public, thanks U.S. Environmental Protection Agency!

We need pesticides, and we need chemical companies to develop new pesticides continually.  Resistance is the nature of nature.   What we didn’t know in 1946 was that we fell into the pattern of all living things regarding resistance.  Whether it's pesticides or antibiotics, resistance in part and parcel of all living things, including plants, animals, insects and microorganisms.  As a result human survival is dependent on research for new products continually.  But that is the crux of the matter isn’t it?  If “radical” thinking supports things that are detrimental to humanity, whether it is about pesticides, agriculture, vaccinations or energy production why would we wish to adopt that as “mainstream” thinking? 

The idea of “radical” thinking becoming “mainstream” thinking is frightening, and yet we are willingly going down that road when we in the pest control industry adopt such practices as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or Green Pest Control.  Neither of which exists in structural pest control.  IPM is an agricultural concept based on threshold limits.  What is it based on in structural pest control?  There is no logical foundation for it in structural pest control.   If there is no logical foundation it doesn’t exist....except the government says it exists....and so it exists illogically.  As for 'green' pest control; that is pretty much whatever anyone wants it to be, because ‘green’ pest control has no universally accepted definition; there is no consensus as to its range; its ideological origins, or the modalities of action which characterize it. 
This lack of clarity extends to every philosophical flavor of the day presented by radicals.   They claim what they do is 'for the children'.  Yet when you look around the world it isn't what they do for the children that should stike us, its more like what they do 'to the children', that should get our attention.  We need to start paying attention to the facts, and not the speculative lies and the emotional appeal of the moment presented by these radicals. Lives are dependent on it. 

No comments:

Post a Comment