THE IMPACT OF PESTICIDES: PESTICIDES VS BIOLOGICAL CONTROL 1

The Impact of Pesticides: Pesticides vs Biological Control

Beneficial or Not?

Rachel A. Aguilar Landa

e3 Civic High
THE IMPACT OF PESTICIDES: PESTICIDES VS BIOLOGICAL CONTROL 2

Pesticides have always been a controversial subject. They put great risk in the annihilation of
diversity in different organisms and pollute wildlife. Several studies have been conducted to
cover just how severe their impact is. However, they also help the economy and there is also the
fact that not all pesticides are toxic if used in the appropriate manner. A substitute to pesticides
could be the control of crops through means of biological control through the use of natural
predators.

Keywords: pesticides, biological control, benefits.

THE IMPACT OF PESTICIDES: PESTICIDES VS BIOLOGICAL CONTROL 3

The earth has been in turmoil for the past decades due to global industrialization and

other human activity. We are the bane of our own existence. To grasp the depth and magnitude

of this grave issue, having a visualization of what it is exactly that is causing the ruination of the

worlds biosphere. By definition, environmental pollution is the release of environmental

contaminants. Which is simply another word for toxic chemicals. Specifically, pesticides, usually

in response to weeds or arthropods, in the form of a deadly concoction of chemicals. The term

pesticide includes but is not limited to insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, rodenticides,

molluscicides, nematicides, plant growth regulators and others. As expressed in Rachel Carsons

Silent Spring, the unconstrained use of pesticides like DDT, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane,

an organic synthetic compound or also known as a chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, used to be

a very prevalent pesticide thats use proliferated in multiple areas and was the cause of

destruction in wildlife as well as the massive pollution it caused, until it was finally banned in

1986. Just as ddt has severely impacted our everyday life, so do several hundred pesticides.

Pesticides of course, are not entirely detrimental to our cause, they can be extremely beneficial at

times. The method in which we handle these pesticides may very well be the difference between

a healthier planet and our demise.

Beginning with how the use of pesticides can prove to be advantageous, if we look back

to the proliferation of pesticides during the 1950s, when DDT came onto the scene, farmers

were elated that a pesticide existed that would rid hosts of calamitous insect pests that had

become immune to the then most powerful pesticide, arsenic or cyanide. They quickly ditched

the aforementioned, seeing how usually they were either too ineffective or too toxic. "During

1946, exhaustive scientific tests have shown that, when properly used, DDT kills a host of
THE IMPACT OF PESTICIDES: PESTICIDES VS BIOLOGICAL CONTROL 4

destructive insect pests, and is a benefactor of all humanity." (Debrow, 2014) This incited

farmers to become more accustomed to the new norm of using powerful pesticides to reach their

desired outcome of yields or to increase the number of product and profit. In consequence to the

rise of the first synthetic organic pesticide, and the many more to come, it seemed as if they were

innocuous. Pesticides became the war machine that transformed Americas food supply.

DDT wasnt the only player in town, another herbicide called 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic

acid, also known as 2,4-D or Tributon, that worked as a yield enhancer, was also used often. It

would soon become highly lauded for its use in weed control. After the war ended in 1945, the

government transferred all the money that would be used for military production into other

peacetime production. This was highly rewarding for the advance in agriculture. As a

consequence of the war ending, americans were finally relishing in the calm after the storm, they

held great respect and admiration for their government, were filled to the brim with patriotism

and religious connotations, and were the picturesque quintessential example of the happy

american. So when word of ambiguous harsh chemicals came out, that were helping increase the

production of food, they took it as a sign of Americas progression and not the ultimate threat

posed against our great biosphere.

While the production of so many pesticides was good for farmers, companies, industries,

and the people, it had an everlasting effect on the earths population of species. Most of these

new agricultural chemicals were known to be highly toxic, although the specific riskssuch as

bioaccumulation in humans, development of birth defects, creation of algal blooms in the oceans,

and destruction of the stratospheric ozone layerwould not be discovered for many years.

(Debrow, 2014.) Small mammals pick up residues remaining in the forest floor years after the
THE IMPACT OF PESTICIDES: PESTICIDES VS BIOLOGICAL CONTROL 5

use of pesticides like DDT. Certain animals are affected more than others. t-DDT residues were

0.08 ppm in snowshoe hares but 8.5 ppm in minks; 9-10 years later they were, respectively, 0.02

and 1.6 ppm in the two species. (Brown, 1978.)

Pesticides not only affect arthropods and other small organisms, but small to large

mammals as well. For example, in the early 1920s the application of calcium arsenate dusts

(40% As2O3 content), at Haste, Germany and resulted in extensive mortality rates of hares,

rabbits, and especially roe deer. The amount of pesticide that is used is also important, too much

or too little can have no effect. When the same grade was applied at 20-30 kg/ha there was no

mortality in quadrupeds.

The pesticides that are sprayed for the elimination of unwanted pests, unfortunately

sometimes affect more than the desired target. It affects forests, plants and nature as well. Some

pesticides are more toxic to soil organisms than others. Some pesticides may break down quickly

when applied to soils, while others may persist for longer periods. (npic, 2016.) It can prove to

be difficult to rid the soil of these detrimental substances. Herbicides greatly disrupt the

ecosystem by long term application, however single or sporadic applications dont prove to make

a significant difference.

Its important to look for different methods of measuring the toxicity of a pesticide.

While almost all pesticides penetrate through all tissue and membranes, some are not necessarily

deadly. Improvements in chemical analytical technology and non-invasive sampling protocols

have made it easier to detect pesticides and their metabolites at very low concentrations in

human tissues. (Colborn. 2007) Since pesticides are impervious to the maternal and paternal

tissues and organs, it allows for the pesticide to further damage the weed or crop.
THE IMPACT OF PESTICIDES: PESTICIDES VS BIOLOGICAL CONTROL 6

The question of how to handle pesticides , or whether we should use them at all, always

rears its head back in. There are a few alternatives to pesticides. Biological control is simply

letting nature take its course. It is controlling pests using other organisms, natural enemies. The

action of parasites, predators, or pathogens in maintaining another organisms population density

at a lower average that would occur in their absence. (Debach, 1964.) Biological control could

be seen as scriptive, utilitarian, and qualitative. The fact that a pest or a potential pest has

emerged is usually due to climatic or other favorable variables in the organisms favor. Natural

enemies simply changes the environmental factors. Physical factors appear to be secondary.

Regulation of an organism's abundance below the level of economic injury is the target of the

field of application biological control. (Debach, 1964.) To regulate the population density of a

community is solely to benefit the economy and is why we practice this sort of control. It is also

perhaps the safest method of getting rid of an undesired pest.

As a subcategory of biological control, there is natural control. Natural control is the

maintenance of a fluctuating population density of an organism within certain definable upper

and lower limits over a period of time by the use of abiotic or biotic environmental variables.

The upper and lower limits, or average population will only change if regulatory factors are

tampered with. Meaning, something, a variable must change for their to be change. There is

always some element of natural control in all populations. What makes this option appealing is

that while pesticides does reduce population temporarily, natural control reduces them

indefinitely.

Other side effects aside, the use of pesticides also affect the economy. Pesticides are

needed in agriculture and forestry because one third (34%) of the production of food and fibre is
THE IMPACT OF PESTICIDES: PESTICIDES VS BIOLOGICAL CONTROL 7

losts to pests. Without pesticides we lose the crops that give us the most profit. The losses to

insects amounted to an average of 13% for the United States in the 1970, to be compared to

Fletchers estimate of 10% for the United States in 1891. The value of loss in the United States

production in 1970 was 11.1 billion dollars, as compared to the $10 billion average annual loss

from 1951 to 1960 for United States crop production alone. (Brown, 1978.)Without the use of

these pesticides the economy takes a hard hit.

In the mid to late 90s pesticides were highly accessible and chases after due to three

main factors: they were toxic to a wide range of organisms, they were assiduous in their task

(didnt break down quickly and remained deeply embedded within the tissue of the crop), and

they were insoluble (rain wouldnt wash it away.) Pesticides werent just used to better farming

techniques either. It was used for many non-agricultural applications as well. For example, it

was used to delouse soldiers in WWII, and, until the 1960's to control mosquitoes in residential

areas of the US. I can remember as a child, in a small town in Minnesota, the excitingly eerie

sight and sound of the "mosquito truck" driving up and down the streets at night, producing a

gentle mist behind it....We would often go out and play to be near it! (Muir, 2012)

Its important to look for different methods of measuring the toxicity of a pesticide.

While almost all pesticides penetrate through all tissue and membranes, some are not necessarily

deadly. Improvements in chemical analytical technology and non-invasive sampling protocols

have made it easier to detect pesticides and their metabolites at very low concentrations in

human tissues. (Colborn. 2007) We are possibly in need of a innovative administrative policy to

protect human and environmental health.

THE IMPACT OF PESTICIDES: PESTICIDES VS BIOLOGICAL CONTROL 8

New approaches for determining the overall safety of all pesticides are pivotal to the fight

in protecting our environment. While some pesticides remain toxic and pollute our environment,

others do not. There is no definitive cure for the consequences pesticides bring, however

alternatives do exist. Making use of the innocuous pesticides and other forms of pest control is

our best bet at protecting the biodiversity in our planet.

THE IMPACT OF PESTICIDES: PESTICIDES VS BIOLOGICAL CONTROL 9

References

Aktar, Wasim. M.D, (2009) Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards.

Brown, A.W.A, (1978) Ecology of Pesticides. Canada, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Carroll E. Lynn., Colborn, Theo. (2007) Pesticides, Sexual Development, Reproduction, and

Fertility: Current Perspective and Future Directio. CA, University of Florida,

Gainesville

Colborn, Theo. (2006) A Case for Revisiting the Safety of Pesticides: A Closer Look at

Neurodevelopment. CA, University of Florida, Gainesville

Debach, P., & Schlinger, E. I. (1964). Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. Kluwer

Academic .

Debrow, Joe. (2014). When Did We Start Using So Many Pesticides?

Prez-Glvez, Fernn (2016) Do we really need pesticides?

The Association Press, (2016) Ortho to Phase Out Chemicals Blamed For The Decline in Bees.

Pesticides, Beyond (2011) Impacts of Pesticides on Wildlife. 701 E Street, SE, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20003