Those Winds of Change are Headwinds

Chris Beytes

While I was formulating this column (meaning, laying back in my chair, staring at the ceiling, urging my muse to deliver the goods), I decided to see what Bill Swanekamp had written about in his column.

As always, it was timely and well-thought-out. In fact, it was a “great minds” moment, as I had been toying with addressing the topic myself, as I’d spent the morning answering questions and approving comments about the Montgomery County lawn pesticide ban, which I’d published in Acres Online.

Bill is correct—change is in the air. Society is moving away from its long-standing “innocent until proven guilty” view of products and exchanging it for “we shouldn’t take chances.”

Since the advent of government oversight agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, Americans took it for granted that if a product came to market and the EPA or FDA said it was okay, then it was okay. We trusted them. In fact, we probably trusted the manufacturers, too. At that time, we had no reason not to.

It was probably the publication of “Silent Spring” in 1962 that set America on its current anti-chemical path, and even though it’s taken 50 years for society to catch up with the vocal and active environmentalists, the time has come when you can no longer defend questionable products simply by saying they’re government approved.

You want a non-chemical example? How about “lean, finely textured beef.” Disparagingly known as pink slime, and approved by the USDA, this beef additive can compose up to 15% of a pack of ground beef and it can still be called 100% beef … because it is. It’s created using modern meat-processing methods and disinfected with ammonium hydroxide (which is also used in pudding and baked goods). It’s safe and approved … yet sales dropped an estimated 80% and massive plants had to be closed when consumers learned the details about it simply because they were grossed out. Hey, I was, too! And yet there’s been no known sickness or death caused by it. It’s not even remotely linked to any disease, not even indigestion, certainly not cancer. Still, negative publicity by the New York Times and ABC News (which is being sued for $1.2 billion in damages) turned consumers against lean, finely textured beef.

Given that, do weed & feed and grub control stand a chance? Google “lawn chemicals” and the first two pages are filled with the words “toxicity,” “toxic substances act,” “unsafe chemicals,” “Congress poised to revise laws,” “protecting people from unsafe chemicals” and more. Any consumer looking for facts is going to get a dose of negative news.

What’s my view? As an industry, we need to do like Bill Swanekamp and get ahead of the curve. Bill didn’t move away from his traditional wet sprays because they were finally banned by Monmouth County. He did it because they were no longer effective. He didn’t say to his staff, “Look, I know it doesn’t seem like they’re working, but they used to, so in my book they’re still good.” That would be the same as arguing, “I don’t care if new research says chemical X might cause cancer, the EPA says it’s safe so it must be.” Or a burger stand still sourcing beef that might contain lean, finely textured beef and hoping nobody notices.

Times change. Good products don’t always remain the best choices.

Yes, please support industry efforts to preserve good products like neonics for as long as we can. GrowerTalks does. But heed the writing on the wall by educating yourself about alternatives. Be on the forefront of new chemistries, new methods and any alternatives available to you. Read our stories on biological controls.

And lastly, don’t shout it to the world. This isn’t about generating positive PR or impressing the activists. Friends of the Earth will applaud your efforts … then demonize you for your fertilizer use or carbon footprint.

No, do it because in business today, if you’re not moving forward, you’re moving backwards … and into the wind. GT