Like so many Americans, I’m fascinated by the technological advancements that have fundamentally changed the way we live. Long lines of payphones that were once found in every airport are long gone. With my smartphone I can call a friend, write a message, locate a restaurant, or check the weather—all without breaking a sweat. It should be no surprise that agriculture has seen its share of innovations, too. In fact, some of the most cutting-edge research today is occurring right on the farm.
The average American farm feeds 20 times the people it did a hundred years ago. One reason for this amazing increase in productivity is the products farmers use to protect their crops from destructive weeds, diseases and insect pests. We sometimes forget that humans are in competition with these pests for the food we eat, and crop protection products have helped farmers ensure that more of that food is available for our own consumption. Studies have shown that without these products, nearly half the food produced would be lost.
Despite the advantages provided by these agricultural products, people are rightly interested in knowing about the safety of their food supply. I’m frequently asked about modern agrichemicals and biotechnologies from neighbors and others who are genuinely concerned about the safety of their food. After all, there is a school of thought that believes the use of such technologies has no place in the food we eat. Since we all care about the safety of our food, it’s important to better understand how our regulatory process works to protect us.
Pesticides are among the most highly regulated products in commercial use today. Most people are surprised to learn that it takes an average of 10 years from the time a new pesticide is first discovered until it is approved for registration and can be sold. The EPA requires more than 120 different baseline scientific studies to assess the safety of these products to humans, wildlife and the environment. And that’s only the beginning.
Our regulatory oversight process is based on the use of science to help make risk assessments. Inherent in this process is the understanding that nothing we do is without some level of risk. That’s true for the cars we drive, the air we breathe and the food we eat. That is why the EPA requires that each regulated product must “perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” Those who look for zero risk are chasing phantoms, as it would be impossible to attempt to regulate anything based on that criterion.
The U.S. regulatory process is a dynamic one. Products that were previously registered are not exempt from further scientific scrutiny. That’s because science itself is not static. As we continue to learn more about the complex interactions within our ecosystem, we must constantly refine the way we understand and measure risk. It’s for this reason that all pesticides are required to undergo periodic re-evaluation by the EPA to ensure they continuously meet the highest standards of safety available to protect human health and the environment.
Just as our registration process has evolved, so too has the way we protect our crops. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is not so much remembered for what it predicted (much of which turned out to be wrong), but for what it did to raise the public consciousness about the importance of environmental regulation. Crops that were once treated in pounds of product per acre now receive fractions of grams of product per acre. The EPA uses parts per million (ppm) for national drinking water standards, but our industry has largely moved to parts per billion (ppb) when it comes to setting regulatory standards for measuring residue levels in food. One ppb is the equivalent of about one second in 32 years.
Passionate people can respectfully disagree about the way we grow our crops today, but there is no disputing the fact that scientific advances have helped make American agriculture the envy of the world. Our industry has embraced this scientific revolution because it’s necessary to help feed a growing world population. The amount of food we’ll need to produce in the next 20 years is twice the amount of the food we’ve produced in the past 10,000 years.
So when we reach for that smartphone, let’s remember that modern agriculture, based on sound science and regulatory risk assessment, is every bit as smart—and perhaps even more important to our lives and our future.