WHY I’LL USE CHEMICALS ON MY FARM THIS YEAR
To choose otherwise would be to actively pursue crop failure, Toban Dyck writes.
Chemicals changed the course of agriculture. They became available. Then they became affordable. And then they started to keep their promises, reducing input costs, improving weed/pest management and, ultimately, increasing production and profitability.
Genetics did the same. Advancements in breeding heralded the dawn of what many now colloquially refer to as GMOs, which have increased yields and protein content in crops and allowed food production to take place in previously infertile areas around the globe.
I appreciate the chemistries that allow me to grow high-yielding crops on clean, weed-free fields. I appreciate the science that allows me access to plant varieties suited to my region.
But, sometime between the beginnings of these technologies and now, the public has rallied against the use of agricultural chemicals; and the public has risen against the use of GMOs to the extent that food companies that have never used a genetically modified ingredient are finding it advantageous to put GMO -free on their packaging.
Agriculture-based advocacy groups, many of them private companies, are meeting this social license challenge by putting out materials suggesting that if the public, or, perhaps, the world, doesn’t 100 per cent buyin to the idea that without the use of chemicals and genetically modified crop varieties, farmers will not be able to feed the world.
It’s a quick fact I’ve heard many times. And most of the time it’s uttered as a bullet aimed at someone who doesn’t know much about agriculture. To tell a pesticide skeptic that without Round-up people would starve seems hyperbolic, gratuitously insensitive and may not be entirely accurate.
Is agriculture on the right trajectory? The question is an important one. Few things are perfect. And bad habits can last a lifetime. It’s never a bad idea to question what is.
On the ground, farmers would say, “Yes, but we need more agriculture-friendly policies so the industry can better realize its potential.”
I don’t disagree with that. I don’t disagree with the theory that certain pesticides, GMOs and other technologies are needed to ensure our growing world receives the protein it requires, and I certainly don’t disagree with the idea that ag-related policies should have a foundation in science and understanding.
But, maybe — just maybe — our current food/crop-production needs are that of a post- Second World War, chemical-happy system that once conflated “could” with “should” and continues to do so. Regret is rarely a healthy approach. And denial is a crippling cross to bear. There was a time when margarine, SPAM and synthetic pesticides represented progress. Some of those things don’t anymore.
Could things be different? Yes. Always yes. Should they be different? I don’t know.
For the public to rebuke farmers for their widespread use of pesticides and GMOs, calling those things unhealthy and environmentally harmful is inaccurate and merciless. For farmers to say that today’s agricultural practices are the only way is also inaccurate and, possibly, insulting.
It’s not the intention of this column to say whether agriculture is on the right trajectory or not. It is, however, the intention of this column to broadly illustrate that agriculture, as it exists today, knows how to maintain itself; fix itself; and improve itself.
But it’s not an ahistoric industry. It has made moves and encountered forks in the road. What it is now reflects the prior commitments that made it so.
I will use chemicals on my farm this year.
I am setup for that. To choose otherwise would be to actively pursue crop failure.
Someone I revere once said, no matter how successful something is, you should always take the time to question if it’s right, if it’s good or if it could be better.