Atrazine is estimated to be the most heavily used herbicide in the United States today. An estimated 76.4 million pounds are applied annually and approximately 75% of the field corn acreage grown in the United States is treated with atrazine. Although atrazine has a low acute toxicity and does not pose any risk from food, atrazine is detected daily in water supplies across the United States. There are always two sides to every argument, but in the case of atrazine, it seems that the risks involved with atrazine seeping into the water supply is an issue that has been overlooked, and the EPA needs to set stricter regulations and impose better monitoring practices in order to help alleviate the high concentration levels of atrazine in our water supply to help control health risks that may occur.
For 50 years, farmers have been using atrazine. Atrazine is a triazine herbicide registered for the control of broadleaf weeks and some grassy weeds and controls them by inhibiting photosynthesis. According to its supporters, atrazine is completely safe and effective in its ability to increase crop yields by controlling invasive weed species. Their main argument is that without atrazine, farmers would lose large amounts of revenue. An EPA intern estimated that “The total or national economic impact resulting from the loss of atrazine to control weeds would be in excess of $2 billion per year if atrazine were unavailable to growers.” This seems to be a completely plausible argument, but many environmental groups and activists are outraged by recent studies suggesting that atrazine is harming wildlife species, as well as the health of the human population.
The European Union has officially banned the use of atrazine, and the United States could possibly be next. Recent studies have shown that the toxicity associated with atrazine has had profound effects. The adverse reproductive effects of atrazine have been seen in amphibians, mammals, and humans-even at low levels of exposure. Recent studies also found a possible link between human birth defects and low birth weight and atrazine exposure in the womb. As a result of these studies, the EPA is reviewing its regulations on use of the pesticide. Several states are considering banning atrazine, and six class action lawsuits have been filed seeking to eliminate its use.
Although these two sides present adequate arguments, I still feel that the probable risks of atrazine use outweigh its benefit of significantly increasing crop yields. It is understandable from a farmer’s point of view that atrazine is a large factor in increasing yield and ultimately revenue, but risks of reproductive problems, birth defects in many species, and the risk of possible cancer seem the most important to address. Our knowledge and technology becomes more and more advanced as years progress, and I believe it would be beneficial to the United States as well as the rest of the world to find an alternative to atrazine pesticide use.
This post brings to mind a fact of America that constantly frustrates me: we continually employ short-term solutions to long terms problems and consistently find out that the long term consequences are equal to or worse than the original problem. With prescription medications as well as chemicals and pesticides, we keep learning over and over again that things that were approved by the government or the FDA, 5 to 10 years later cause cancer or birth defects etc. We are so desperate for quick fixes that we approve things after only a few years of testing. a 5 year study for major drugs is not sufficient, nor is a year or even a few years study of a major pesticide sufficient. If this had been more successfully researched the problems could have been cataloged and perhaps we would have never let it become so widely used. There are many ways to make a farm more productive and sustainable through chemical free options, and we need to start employing them instead of quick solutions that cause so much detriment and destruction down the road. These problems we are facing took a long time to manifest and happened gradually. Therefore we need a long term, gradual solution. A technological miracle quick fix is not going to happen.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely. We always want a quick fix for problems such as this and quite possibly there have already been adverse effects on the ecosystem as well as human health since atrazine has been introduced. Since posting this blog, I have researched some alternatives to atrazine. I thought it was very interesting that even though Europe banned the use of Atrazine, corn yields and acres of corn harvested in Italy and Germany have actually increased. A chemical alternative that might be effective is called mesotrione and some studies have shown that corn yields treated with this alternative have performed better than atrazine treated corn yields. Many also believe that reducing applications, or ultimately growing corn without the use of any chemical compounds is quite possible and movement towards these alternatives could help the environment in many ways.
ReplyDeleteAtrazine is the most commonly used herbicide in the U.S. and probably the world. It can be present at several parts per million in agricultural runoff and can reach 40 parts per billion (ppb) in precipitation.
ReplyDelete