The #agriculture sector has a profound effect on any nation's #economy and so is the case with the United States. With states like South Dakota that attribute a large chunk of its economy to agricultural activities, the ban on certain pesticides may have severe implications. While the harmful effects of certain pesticides have raised concerns on the sustainability of wildlife such as deer and other animals, the usefulness of pesticides of various classes to counter destructive pests and diseases causing losses to crops cannot be denied. Bans certain pesticides could leave farmers in a lurch of uncertainty.
The wildlife preservation agenda completely ignores the impact of outright pesticide bans. Not only does such an extreme step comprise the livelihood of farmers, but also negatively impacts food production resulting in huge losses. Senseless regulations are extreme, no matter what the cost is. Pesticide bans have shown to cause heavy economic losses, resulting in as much as $18 billion in lost revenue in California. Staunch agriculturists and food experts posit that the world is going through so much uncertainty from pandemics, power struggles, recession, and resource depletion. Therefore, an outright ban of pesticide could eventually result in food scarcity. Jeopardizing food security throughout the U.S. is a risk not worth taking, therefore, an oversimplified pesticide ban is not the solution.
Matt Eich, a crop consultant, actively objects to the lack of proper prevention strategies. He highlighted that pesticides such as chlorpyrifos were effective in controlling soybean aphid. With chlorpyrifos production coming to a stop by the biggest manufacturer, Corteva, there are still concerns about the food production and impact of the ban on South Dakotan farms. While Sulfoxaflor (Transform) is an effective chemical variant, its useability is limited to some states. This leaves the farmers with extremely scarce options to protect their crops from hazardous pest outbreaks. Pest outbreaks result in crop losses and banning pesticides will only worsen the situation. Agricultural stakeholders do not object to regulations; however, outright bans on tools that risk the viability and productivity of food crops is a dangerous precedence.
The agricultural stakeholders believe that banning the pesticide completely is not a viable solution since it leaves the farmers with no protection or alternative and risks their crop yield. Instead of going for outright bans, the state should first offer green, environmentally-friendly solutions with better and subsidized strategies to prevent any adverse effects on the livelihood of the agricultural sector. Anti-chemical stakeholders cannot continue to disregard the associated factors and ignore possible solutions to remedy the situation.
The back and forth between federal court rulings and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on banning certain pesticides becomes a cause of confusion for the farmers and impacts their decision-making process. The legislators need to make sure that before any concrete decision is made, all stakeholders are on board to avoid disarray and mix-ups. For instance, in the October 2020 case of the Dicamba ruling, the Agriculture Commissioner, Doug Goehring, rightfully backtracked on the federal ruling and allowed the farmers to continue the herbicide usage. He cited the rulings as unreasonable and unrealistic and prompted that North Dakota would only follow suit once EPA formally announces the shift. In short, the regulation on pesticide ban needs to be a well-thought-out process, specifically, looking out for farmers' interests along with sustainable solutions and support. Banning pesticides to save wildlife affects food economy, availability, and profitability, resulting in price hikes and instability. Pesticides, however harmful, have a significance in food production; therefore, until and unless a viable alternative is proposed banning them is a dangerous tactic.
