How Troubling are Pesticides and Fertilizers to Modern Farming?

By: Stephen K. Ainsah-Mensah

It is now all too common to see farm produce bigger in size than before. Fruits and vegetables readily come to mind. Besides, produce look more polished, neater, heavier and far more enticing to consumers than they were in the past. Many people seem to be saying to themselves: “how great farming and farm produce have become, thanks to the wonders of technology!” Farm-soils are micromanaged with the obvious help of fertilizers and bug repellants, especially in areas where land for farming is sadly insufficient. While the former, as we know, promotes the quick growth of crops, the latter guards against the vicious activities of pests on crops.

So far, one can say that such techniques in farming has sped the pace of crop yields; and never has modern technology quickened the advancement of food production than now. The advantage relates to how limited farmlands can nonetheless offset the problems of rapid population growth by turning over massive quantities of crop yields for human consumption. It is as if turning back on this remarkable farm technology could lead to food shortages and cause human suffering. This irresistible feature about technology in relation to farm yields has even drawn the attention of those farmers who have no substantive reason to imitate the farming practices of those other farmers whose farmlands are restricted in expanse.

The question, then, is: should farmers with adequate lands choose to produce according to technologically induced methods of farming that embraces the extensive use of fertilizers and pesticides? Or, should the extensive use of fertilizers and pesticides be set aside for farmers who produce on restricted farmlands? Either way the harmful effects of the consumed farm produce on human life is palpably real. It may be shown by experts - or, it has been shown by experts - that boosting farm yields through the use of, say, all kinds of fertilizers and pesticides increases the risk of, say, carcinogenic foods on the human body following their consumption. This point may stand unchallenged and is in agreement with commonsense. If chemicals are massively introduced into farm-soils to encourage, in turn, massive crop yields, it stands to reason that the yields were “disturbed” from developing according to the plants' natural capacities. The artificially induced yields are consumed, and they produce in the human body mutated elements of the chemicals, which were originally introduced into the soil, in whichever form. Accordingly, the human body reduces its natural capacity and may, quite unexpectedly, suffer from bouts of sicknesses or unhealthy development that, in its natural cast, it would not have suffered from.

Some people may argue that the issue of producing chemically induced foods – or what is commonly termed genetically engineered foods (GEF) - does nothing or does little to distort the natural balance of the human being. To them, the human body can readily adapt to, even, carcinogenic foods and subsequently become resistant to them. Suppose these contentions are true, then we are left with the issue of whether a new breed of humans fed on genetically engineered foods (GEF) are as capable in life's activities as their counterpart humans fed on naturally induced foods, usually termed organic foods (OF). One may not be able to address this issue definitively. But it is clear that it is a matter of whether some designated consumable foods are harmful to the human body or not. If they are, it may make no sense to argue in their favour on the basis that some human bodies may resist their acknowledged harm. Even for these harm-resistant humans, they may suffer from unrecognized or unknown harms that may work unsuspectingly on the body’s structure and development. Why allow harm to persist in order to eventually resist it when the possibility of preventing the harm to occur exists?

But, then, there is the problem of disregarding the role of technology in farm production if, first of all, the farmer has to stay away from the pressures of insufficient income that comes with low crop yields. As one can see, the natural way of growing crops and harvesting them for human consumption does not bring about massive yields in comparison with technologically induced crop yields that subscribe to the principles of genetically engineered foods (GEF). Therefore, the dilemma the farmer has to face is this: “Am I to do what is morally right by producing food that is mostly natural and safe for human consumption? Or, am I to do what is logically justifiable by producing food that can support the growing population and also support me with regard to a predictable, good income even though it could be harmful for human consumption?” One can see here that what is morally right to do and what is logically justifiable to do tend to clash with regard to modern techniques of food production on the farm; and it is essential to seek some kind of a synthesis between the two if we are not to stay inexorable in claiming that these two are glaringly complementary, therefore exclusive in operation.

It is far more appropriate to claim that what is grown and eaten ought to be connected to what gets into the environment. Pollutants are not just lodged in the environment; they get carried over into farmlands and affect the natural growth of crop yields. The farmer who faces this problem is logically compelled to use pesticides and, in many cases, fertilizers to accomplish the goal of getting the anticipated yields. It may not be easy, in modern farming, to stay away from the massive use of fertilizers and pesticides in industrialized areas or in areas where pollutants are hardly proficiently managed. Policy and decision makers could merely initiate and sustain public education strategies that make clear the harmful effects of chemicals on farmlands. Of course, the sources of pollutants ought to be vigorously pursued in order to minimize their effects. Suppose pollutants and pollution of various forms are expertly controlled, then farmers could be instructed to do their part in producing as many organic foods as possible instead of the counterpart genetically engineered foods (GEF). The emerging problem would then have to be in connection with how to price farm produce. A reasonably high price would encourage farmers at large to stick to the production of organic foods. Low prices would naturally be a deterrent.

Nowadays, however, it is not surprising to see quite an important increase in organic food production. Consumers have become so familiar with the large quantities of GEF compared to OF. With the limited supply of OF, many farmers may cash in on the increased prices by striving to increase their production. What is hard to do is how to capably produce OF in the presence of unreceding pollution.