The use of pesticides in industrial/ factory farming

The use of pesticides in industrial/ factory farming

             In most industrialized countries, agriculture has been considered as the primary contributor to economic development (Van Hemmen, 652). Intense agricultural production has resulted in adverse effects on the environment in most regions of the world (Van Hemmen, 652). Increased challenges in food production and prospects of reduced food production have led to the intensification of agricultural output by the key practitioners hence decreasing environmental capacity to ecosystem service population supply. The need for agricultural intensification has led to overreliance in chemical use, especially pesticides, veterinary chemicals, and fertilizers. Besides, rapid agricultural expansion has increased the demand for pesticides and agro-chemicals, becoming an integral part of the protection of public health, livestock, and plant. Evidence has shown that exposure of pesticides by most industrial and factory farming to the workers has intrinsic environmental and public health risks in all stages of application during production, importation, usage, disposal, and storage. Most of the pesticides are carcinogenic, endocrine disruptors, and mutagenic.

Pesticides have been linked in many adverse health effects to the exposed individuals. In case-controlled studies, workers who have been exposed to agricultural and forestry herbicides had a 5.3 times more risk of contracting soft tissue sarcoma. Other studies have shown that pesticide exposure to most flower growing workers has resulted in increased premature births, congenital malformations, and abortions to pregnant mothers working in the floriculture industry (McCurdy, Hansen & Weisskopf et al. 290). A case of exposure to nematocide dibromochloropropane molecule resulted in spermatogenesis suppression and overproduction of luteinizing and follicle stimulation hormone. They are striking a balance between the detrimental and beneficial impacts of pesticides in industrial and factory farming has resulted in a pesticide dilemma. Different stakeholders have shown varying perceptions, attitudes, and knowledge associated with occupational and passive potential exposure pesticide exposure.

Despite not working in industrial farms, residents and bystanders are at times exposed to adverse pesticide effects. The effects of pesticides on residents and bystanders are among the essential question for consideration as they are indirectly affected by the pesticides without their knowledge. Studies have shown that increased environmental contamination with pesticides has raised a concern to the public since 2000 (Van Hemmen, 652). Fumigation of crops, livestock, and structures hosting these agro-produces increase the number of pesticide molecules in the air. The pesticides are then transferred to nearby residents who inhale them, contracting short and long term pesticide effects with time. Pesticide residues such as chlorporpham, lindane, fenpropidin, dinocap, pendimethalin, and alachlor, among others, have been detected in surrounding areas that have been disinfected. Screening of residents and bystanders within the region showed a significant contraction of the diseases in their systems (Zhang). This creates an important question on what should be done to protect the indirect transfer of pesticide molecules to the surrounding public (Van Hemmen, 654). Should the industrial managers develop new strategies of applying the pesticide to crops, should preventive structures be elected around the farms, or should new spray additives of high molecular weight be included to the pesticides to increase adhesive of pesticides to crops reducing the increase in pesticide residues in the air?

One of the primary concerns with pesticide use has been related to exposure of the chemicals to operators and workers working in most closed greenhouses to long term and acute post-exposure complications (Morgan, 2965). Recently, there has been an increased outcry of people working in greenhouses being exposed to toxic chemicals through contact or inhalation of pesticides. A recent example was a video clip that surfaced, showing a spray program being administered in a flower greenhouse as other workers were continuing to harvest the flowers. One of the severe concerns that emanated with the procedure was that most of the workers did not have personal protective gear, or they were utterly worn out hence useless in preventing any contact (McCurdy, Hansen & Weisskopf et al. 290). Afterward, these workers start developing chronic health issues such as cancers, damage to nervous and brain systems, infertility and related reproductive problems, kidney, liver and lung damages, and other congenital disability problems (Morgan, 2975). Several stakeholders, such as government agencies in the agricultural and health sector, should develop policies that ensure regular assessment of the personal protective gear used by the workers, design the spraying programs, and schedules that provide the sprayed areas are entirely left out to prevent exposure to such complications.

Consumers of most industrial and factory produced farming food products have not been left out, raising a question of how healthy and clean is the food vegetable and fruit products sold in the market. Research studies conducted have shown that most locally produced vegetables and fruits in the local market within the production region have high pesticide residues, most of which are in levels toxic for human consumption (Lozowicka, Kaczynski & Paritova et al. 240). However, very few consumers are aware of these incidences as they lack the awareness to distinguish between pesticides littered products and the health ones clearly. Most inspection and regulating agencies are overwhelmed by the magnitude of products in the market falling short in ensuring regular review of the products sold in the market concerning conformity to minimum pesticide levels. In some regions, lack of precise traceability mechanisms results in poor policy actualization; hence consumers keep on contracting chronic diseases due to these harmful chemical residues. Strategies of consumer sensitization on developing their kitchen garden within their compounds should be prepared to reduce overexposure to these chemicals (Lozowicka, Kaczynski & Paritova et al. 245). Besides, retail shops dealing with organic products should be opened in most regions to offer an alternative to consumers who would not have the capacity to grow their vegetables at their place of residence.

Despite the harmful pesticide concerns, there are advantages and reasoning behind the use of these chemicals by most agricultural managers (Damalas, 245). The key question to this would be, would we let diseases and pests destroy the farm produce in farms resulting in reduced food production? The simple answer to this is that this would not be sociologically feasible. Despite their toxicity levels, pesticides are beneficial in preventing the destruction of agro-produce by most pathogens, ensuring that crops produce optimally (Damalas, 246). Pests like thrips, diamondback moths, and fruit flies are among the leading destructive pathogens in the agricultural sector resulting in billions of money lost in inferior unmarketable products. The managers and agricultural investors are therefore left with no option but to use the pesticides in managing them, especially for short seasoned crops. Policies should be developed to sensitize integrated pest management systems that will minimize over-reliance to pesticide use and employ other techniques such as the use of organic biodegradable pesticides as opposed to synthetic pesticides, cultural pest control methods and use of biological control mechanisms.

Current outbreaks of invasive pests such as the desert locusts in the East African countries have resulted in a considerable threat in food production, creating possibilities of food shortage and famine outbreak in the region (Dobson). Desert locusts are among the most destructive pests with the potentiality of consuming about 35 tons of green materials in a day. The main question in this context is that the government would relax and use the biological and cultural management methods to avoid the use of aerial spraying programs that may seem as a pollutant to the environment. The use of overhead spraying is an issue of concern to environmental degradation with scientists raising matters with the climatic change (Dobson). The governments are left with little option but to use these mechanisms to make sure that their citizens are food secured and prevent further migration of the pests to regions that are considered over-productive.

In summary, the debate on risk and beneficial factors related to pesticide use has long been raised. Assessing the impacts on both sides, pesticides have created a considerable health impact on people that are either directly or indirectly exposed to these pesticides. This article has identified key enthymeme questions related to the adverse effects of pesticides. The first issue of concern is what are the implications of pesticide residues from the environmental contamination to residence and bystanders living around these industrial farms? What are the long term and low impact of the pesticide on the farm operators and workers involved in spraying programs in greenhouses, and are what preventive strategies that would be employed in protecting these workers? Finally, how sensitized are the consumers that buy the fruits and vegetables from the local markets concerning minimum residue levels of the chemicals in the products they purchase and what policies should be enacted to ensure consumer protection?

On the other hand, benefits associated with using of pesticides have been shown raising the questions like should the stakeholders in the food sector avoid using these pesticides and risk destruction of crops in their farms threatening the economic contribution of the agricultural industry to the countries’ GDP. Besides, with the increased invasion of destructive migratory pests, should the governments avoid using the pesticides and risk threats to their respective countries’ food security? Based on these two issues, stakeholders ought to balance the cost-benefit assessments before making decisions on whether to use pesticides, the period of application, and the type of pesticides to apply.