The number of migratory songbirds returning to North America has gone into sharp decline due to the unregulated use of highly toxic pesticides and other chemicals across Latin America.
Ornithologists blame the demand for out-of-season fruit and vegetables and other crops in North America and Europe for the destruction of tens of millions of passerine birds. By some counts, half of the songbirds that warbled across America's skies only 40 years ago have gone, wiped out by pesticides or loss of habitat.
Forty-six years ago, the naturalist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, a study of the ravages caused to wildlife, especially birds, by DDT. The chemical's use on American farms almost eradicated entire species, including the peregrine falcon and bald eagle.
The pesticide was banned and bird numbers recovered, but new and highly toxic pesticides banned by the US and European Union are being widely used in Latin America.
Because of changed consumer habits in Europe and the US, export-led agriculture has transformed the wintering grounds of birds into intensive farming operations producing grapes, melons and bananas as well as rice for export.
Ornithologists say another silent spring is dawning across the US as birds are being poisoned by toxic chemicals or killed as pests in their winter refuges across South and Central America as well as the Caribbean. They say that many species of songbird will never recover, and others may even become endangered or extinct if controls are not put in place or consumer habits changed.
More problems await those birds which make it home. Millions of acres of wilderness the birds use as nesting grounds have been ploughed under in the drive to grow corn for ethanol, for bio-fuel.
Some 150 species of songbirds undertake extraordinary migrations up to 12,000 miles every year as they move from the south to nesting grounds in the US and Canada every spring. Ornithologists say that almost all these species are at risk of poisoning.
The migratory songbirds in most trouble include the wood thrush, the Kentucky warbler, the eastern kingbird and the bobolink, celebrated by the 19th century American poet Emily Dickinson as "the rowdy of the meadows".
Bridget Stutchbury, an ornithologist and professor at York University in Toronto, said: "With spring we take it for granted that the sound of the songbirds will fill the air with their cheerful sounds. But each year, as we continue to demand out-of-season fruits and vegetables, fewer and fewer songbirds will return."
The bobolink songbird has experienced such a steep decline, it has almost fallen off the charts. The birds migrate in flocks from Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay to the east coast of the US, feeding on grain and rice, prompting farmers to regard them as a pest. Bobolink numbers have plummeted almost 50 per cent in the past four decades, according to the North American Breeding Bird Survey.
Rosalind Renfrew, a biologist who studied bobolinks as they were feeding in rice paddies in Bolivia, found about half of the birds had been exposed to toxic chemicals banned in Europe and the US. Some 40 to 50 species, which include the barn swallow, the wood thrush the dickcissel as well as migratory birds of prey, are starting to disappear.
It is only recently that the decline has been definitively linked to the use of toxic pesticides in the Caribbean and across Latin America. "Everyone who has looked for pesticide poisoning in birds has found it," Professor Stutchbury said. "When we count birds during our summers we are finding significant population declines in about three dozen species of songbirds."
She wrote in the comment pages of The New York Times: "They are the modern-day canaries in the coal mine." She said: "The imported fruits and vegetables found in our shopping carts in winter and early spring are grown with types and amounts of pesticides that would often be illegal in the United States."
Growers are using high doses of pesticides, which the World Health Organisation calls class I toxins. These are also toxic to humans and are either restricted or banned in the US and EU. But controls in Latin American countries are easily flouted.
"I believe that if we don't make drastic changes quite literally many birds which are common now are going to become rare," said Professor Stutchbury.
Testing by individual EU countries and the US Food and Drug Administration reveals that fruits and vegetables imported from Latin America are three and sometimes four times as likely to violate basic standards for pesticide residues.
© 2008 The Independent
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
58 Comments so far
Show AllIsn't there something, anything, that we could possibly value more than money??? What good is all the money in the world if we can't breathe the air, eat the food or drink the water? How much money does it take to be a 'good' Christian?
Silent Spring? I heard not long ago a panel of so called experts attack Rachel Carson.
And the USA exporting DDT and such to south America Countries? Nothing new there!
Though regular Americans demanding imported fruits and vegetables all year round? Why? That was the thing about eating a watermelon or bitting into a local Apple . They were a treat to remember and to wait till the next year to recieve that treat again was well worth it.
Today we buy this imported fruits and vegetables not for a treat or even necessity.
Just plain gluttony is more like it.
It is just like Ice Cream. I still remember real ice cream, but how many others do.
What is that old saying EAT Sh-T and think it is Ice Cream.
I would bet there are many starving people in those South American countries that need food. A pity they are not allowed to partake of those local fruits and vegetables.
Want to be it is some American Corporation that is involve in this mess? You can count on it.World Trade Bullshit!
It is the same Old Powers That Be finding new ways to become even more rich and powerful.
Friends Soylent green is HERE!
jungleboy - Stomp your feet and call me names if it makes you feel better, but I feel that our high-intensity vegetable operation is more ecologically freindly than a sprawling organic operation and it requires no farm animals. Part of our success is direct marketing through farmers markets that cuts out all the middle men. We use the best and safest technologies to produce our crops without regard for religious beliefs like neo-paganism.
Mr obvious is a scammer! I'll bet he can lick his own rear end! Obviously arrogant! Woof! Mr tell me what you really want. Who pays you.
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=119
Factory farms are scientifically controlled environments but who would want to live on one?
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=119rthlings:
dingoboy - The only way to stop more land from going into agriculutural production is to decrease demand and subsidies (like ethanol). I realize that just because the local population of songbirds has increased on my farm does not mean that this is a general phenomenon. I would hope that you also realize this for your local. This is why I base my assessment on scientific studies rather than testimonials. I believe that we want the same things but that we place our faith on solutions in different places. You seem to place your faith in returning to times gone by. I place my faith in science due to our ever growing population. I do rely on scientific studies that show that seperating agriculture and natural habitats preserves more diversity than trying to share agriculture and wildlife on the same land. Agriculture is by its nature disruptive. Government programs that ecourage conservation are good, but then they go and subsidize ethanol and undo any good that has been done. By the way, I do not use these programs. We also practice IPM and use the safest technology to control pests, whether that be organic or conventional.
Mr. Obvious,
again, I agree with some of what you say and kudos to you for your efforts to restore some land to a more natural state. But I think we both digress a little. You started out by basically saying that the article was 'jibberish' because it didn't quote any hard scientific evidence. But really, if you look around you, you will see that the songbird populations have decreased dramatically over the last 40 years. (speaking of my own lifetime) Again, I congratulate you on the bird population on your farm but where I live in Canada, I have seen a radical decline in many species and I don't need hard science to back up my own empirical evidence. To say that not using chemicals, herbicides, pesticides and synthetic fertilizers is a religious belief is irrelevent. If you look harder, you will see that using these things affects the "great web" of life in negative ways. You say that more land is needed for organic production, yet do you really believe that those who intensively farm animals and monocrop GM plants are going to let the rest of their land ("leftover" from their high production yields) return to nature? Personally, I have witnessed the opposite.
dingoboy: Yes I am being a bit flippant by taking a black and white view. However - "switching to an organic product is nearly always a positive thing for your health and the planet" - is a religious belief (neo-paganism). Animal production produces greenhouse gases just as severely for "free-range" animals as it does in confinement operations. However, "free-range" production simply spreads the problem across more land; thus reducing availability of this land for restoration to natural habitats. Furthermore, animal waste as a fertilizer requires lots of animals. We agree that reducing animal fat in our diets has many environmental and health benefits. Although many studies have tried to prove organic produce is healthier than conventional produce, they have always failed. Buying organic coffee to help the environment is just silly. You replace pesticide problems with increased animal production, and increased land use due to lower yields. My assessment is that most "organic" operations create more environmental problems than they solve. The "organic movement" also destracts us from making real change. If it makes you feel good to drink organic coffee, then go ahead. I drink more wine than I should also, but I am not fooling myself into thinking that I am helping to save the world by switching to organic wine. I do think that I am helping by creating wetlands, prairie and a pond on >65 acres along with having planted over 25,000 trees (with a planting bar not a tractor). This effort is being supported by raising high-intensity vegetables on less than 7 acres (including our barn an house). I do not do this alone, and my family (wife and two kids) contribute more to this resoration than me. I admit that these misguided effort to make people feel good get my dander up!
Mr. Obvious,
I actually agree with some of what you say here. However, your attitude seems to suggest an 'all or nothing' approach to change and you have thrown in a few monkey wrenches which confuse the issue. While animal production is indeed a major contributor to greenhouse gases, it is the way in which we farm these animals that causes the problem. Intensive feedlot farming is unnatural in the extreme. The manure from these lots could not be used as fertilizer for any 'certified organic' operation. And synthetic fertilizer is not even slightly environmentally friendly. One of the best things you can do for the environment is to REDUCE MEAT CONSUMPTION but nowhere do you suggest this. Meanwhile, you advocate quitting coffee because it is consumed purely for 'pleasure'. Well, even if this were true, animals, even human ones, are sentient beings. Pleasure is important to us. And coffee is not a "perfectly good bean" as you suggest. It cannot be consumed like a lentil or a soybean; it is always consumed as a drink. (Or a chocolate coated snack.) Your black and white version of things omits some very important facts. Even small steps can make a big difference - switching to an organic product is nearly always a positive thing for your health and the planet.
Coffee, like tobacco, has only one purpose, pleasure. Tobacco is not coming off the shelves either, but switching to organic tobacco is hardly an answer to improving the environment. Organic agriculture also requires replacing synthetic fertilizer with animal waste. Animal production is one of the major contributors of greenhouse gasses. Advocating the increased use of animal waste/production is a good reason to avoid organic products. Another reason is that organic production requires more land for equal production. This requires more natural habitat to be destroyed. Our high-intensity vegetable operation is allowing us to convert 90% of our farm back to natural habitat.
Mr. Obvious April 6th, 2008 6:36 am
Coffee is provided as an alternative to make change in pesticidal markets by the author, Bridget Stutchbury.
But, in another thought, I don't see coffee coming off shelves.
"...go "green", give it up.": Is not helpful.
Alternatives to coffee come grow from certain yards in about a month. The root of a DANDELION can be baked, then ground to smell and taste proportional to coffee. I, in fact, prefer the smell of freshly ground Dandelion to coffee grounds. On a side note, all other parts of the plant are edible, good, and vitaminic. It can even, with some research, be found as a dietary element for suppressing and stimulating appetite.
tortoise - If you really want to help, take coffee off your list all together. It provides no nutrition and it's cultivation destroys natural habitat. Humans are the only animal that would extract the toxin from a perfectly good bean, throw away the bean, and drink the toxin. Coffee is consumed for pleasure, and drink it if you want to, but if you want to go "green", give it up.
dingoboy - I stand corrected. US companies can sell pesticide that are banned or non-registered in the US to another country if they label them as not being registered in the US and inform the importing country's government of this fact. This places the use of these chemicals in the importer's hands. If I had to live in a place infested with maleria, I would be glad to get hold of DDT from Mexico or China to protect myself. As our lifestyles improve, we become less and less tolerant of more and more remote risks. When we face death from disease, the potential effects of DDT seem pretty remote. We used this chemical to free our own country (southern US) from maleria, but now want to deny this technology to those who have not been so lucky. Sounds good when your typing at your computer in your comfortable house. You might feel differently if you lived in a mud hut trying to find enough food to survive.
Actually, we are killing ourselves - and EVERYONE knows it. Push any adult hard enough and they will admit that we are destroying the planet. Even the most hard core right wingers will admit it if you push them on it. It's not about lack of knowledge, it's about being totally messed up inside. We are habitually suicidal, homicidal and ecocidal. It's social behavior that just keeps getting imprinted on the next generation (that's what kids do - imitate - even when they are adults) - generation after generation after generation.
"Mr Obvious" - "the U.S. and Canada do not sell banned products to anyone" ??
Where the hell did you get that idea?
I'm sorry to have to tell you that you are completely wrong. Many American corporations routinely sell (often termed "dumping" by the press) banned products to developing nations. Look into it. (Take the rose coloured specs off, first.)
I am taking copies of this article to Whole Foods and my food coop and letting them know I won't buy any of their produce if they continue to import non-organic produce from South America.
hazmat - I agree that all university publications are not unbiased, but you have to place some faith in someone or something - perhaps the peer-review process. If not, you need to determine everything empirically. Good luck. When I see some untruths from a source, I am certainly sceptical of the rest of the information from that source. I still think that you are more likely to accurate information from a university or scientific journal compared to an .org site with an agenda.
re 9:22am
having seen first-hand how universities, dependent on corporate dollars as they are, have suppressed research that might embarass their donors, i no longer regard .edu as the gold standard for truth, nor should anyone else. "just people's opinions" have as much validity as "just corporate opinions," if not more.
hazmat - Any scientific studies or just people's opinions? How about links to education sites (.edu)? I could send you a link to the KKK site, but I would not expect you to take their opinions as fact.
here are some links to info the agribiz trolls would rather you not have:
www.earthscan.co.uk
www.hesperian.org
www.panna.org
www.pesticideinfo.org
re merryoldsoul,
you're thinking of t.s. elliot's "the wasteland."
Bridget Stutchbury has written a book on the topic, Silence of the Songbirds. We're on the waitlist for the local library's copy.
We live in SW Florida and have a tiny yard which we plant heavily with fruit and seed-bearing natives. Our bird population seems to have been fairly stable over the past 7-8 years.
www.amazon.com/Silence-Songbirds-Losing-Worlds-What/dp/0802716091/ref=pd...
More jibberish: The US and Canada do not sell banned products to anyone. DDT is not made in LA. It is made in China and Mexico:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35-c5.pdf
We wiped malaria out of the southern US with DDT. DDT is very persistent, but data to show it does any harm is dubious. That said, it is wise not to use such a persistant pesticide unless absolutely needed. Unfortunately, mosquitoes in many maleria infested areas are now resistant to DDT.
Does anyone actually have any verifyable information to support the article above? Have any scientific studies actually been done? I am not talking about popular press like the NYT. I mean studies with actual data and evidence. By the way the study on GM affecting caddisflies in Indiana streams has been shown to be bogus. The authors actually wrote a letter to the journal (PNAS) to retract their conclusions (said that they overstated them). They were caught cherry-picking data because they actually had data showing no effect in streams near GM crops.
On our farm, we have seen a huge increase in songbirds over the last 17 years. I credit most of this to habitat restoration that was possible because we concentrated our high-intensity vegetable operation onto 10% of our acres allowing us to restore 90% of the land to natural habitat (not yet complete but we are working on it).
Pesticides can indeed cause adverse environmental effects, and these need to be minimized. However, bogus claims do not allow real dangers to be delt with and they work against genuine efforts by discrediting the cause.
People who live far from the equator can grow most of their winter food in the summer in their back yards and sun dry it for winter. Small passive solar greenhouses can extend the growing season into winter for some fresh food. The indigenous people in the tropics can cultivate/harvest the thousands of wild species sustainably and small quantities can be shipped to the other latitudes to provide amazing food variety, with far superior nutritional value over commercial food, and minimum disturbance to the biosphere. This is one of the many possibilities after we cage the capitalist beast.
I know a guy who spilled some of the currently legal pesticide on himself from a pack sprayer and had nerve damage for years. He could barely walk!
But hey, people still get fast food.... or "store bought" food.
Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Jesus will save us!
I no longer hear the whip-or-will in the evening, or see the red headed woodpecker, or the quail (bob white). The crows are very scarce.
Last spring I planted some river cane because they attract warblers. This year I hope to plant large numbers of river cane plants on a river island in an effort to reestablish a canebreak.
Blackberries and wild grapes are plentiful and the birds love them both. I feed the birds all year and provide flower gardens that produce seeds that they like. Each year I try to add something new. Indigenous wild flowers are especially good for the birds, bees, and butterflies. I have a hundred acres in the Ozarks that was gifted to me and I mostly allow it to grow wild. I do collect downed trees and branches and establish wildlife cover mostly at the edge of the woods leading to open fields. There are two ponds on the property and no fertilizers or pesticides are used. The birds are plentiful and sing loudly each morning. Egrets, cranes, ducks, and hawks are also plentiful along with the ever present turkey buzzards. I would sure hate to lose the beauty of bird life that exists here. Hardwood forests predominate here and offer good protection for most animals. The panther and black bear are returning too. I have heard a few strange bird songs here this Spring that I do not recognize. So there is hope.
We had no whip-poor-wills this year. Eat produce in season.
We need all countries to produce food for themselves. It's a National Security issue the U.S.; think about it.
Food is essential; any breaks in war, fuel, shipping or even technical problems can break the chain. We should not go beyond a certain percentage.
Moreso we are eating the planet! Billions of people eat... a lot!
------
Back to dissappearing species. Our planet is one BIG asset, include it all. It would be nice to start over with a brand new planet wouldn't it?
What we have lost has never been accounted for. We ignore the value lost everytime a developer or a Wal-Mart fills in a wetland used by wildlife. That "Asset" is a piece of a balanced organism living on the surface of the earth; called LIFE. Yes, I'm calling the living earth an organism, (live with it).
Our "Liabilities" use assets to improve our "Quality of Life" or "Owner's Equity".
We view our assets as pennies from heaven! Not the finite and fragile life that is being sold to the lowest bidder.
merryoldsoul April 4th, 2008 10:49 pm
"...that as Marshell Maclean, said, "the world won't end in a bang, but in a whimper""
On a side note, this phrase is taken from T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men". It goes...
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
If you get a chance listen to the oration from Eliot.
Alida Cornelius
You said:
"Eat what is in season in your area. Find an organic farm to buy from, Start a food coop."
Laudable idea; but not always possible. Here in NW Ohio, we're getting ready to plant our gardens (now that winter is over). I'm glad I don't need to depend on what I could produce or purchase locally right now. In the old days, this used to be known as the Hunger Time. Scurvy was prevalent, as no fresh vegetables could be obtained. They had either already been eaten, or spoiled by this time.
Technology has given us the canning process to help bridge this once dangerous gap - and it does work. The drawback there is that it requires an enormous amount of work and time to husband a garden large enough to feed a family through a whole year. But, not to worry, if the bush Miracle Economy continues long enough, we'll all have plenty of time for subsistence farming.
When nothing is more important in life than nature, why are we bombarded with the chronic negativity of the shadow governments' insanity?
Bear Stearns, Spitzer, Bush's delusions about Iraq, and the nonsensical, rhetorical debate between presidential candidates, take center stage in the midst of a world in conflict. The greatest potential of humanity is being sacrificed and squandered for special interests. There are no partisan issues where ecology is concerned -- this is a matter of life and death. Song birds, polar bears, wolves, bison -- wildlife, and Iraqis, have become the targets of stupid white men. The masses have been effectively anesthetized by the media, their televisions, cellphones, technical toys, and the belief that Iraq had WMD.
There is nothing more important for the conscious minority than to champion causes like the one brought to light here about endangered songbirds. If there's an answer to the question "what can we do?" it might be, think green -- and maybe vote green. A radical departure from the norm, but, as Darwin asserts, the members of a species that depart from the norm are those that survive.
Domestic cats are not part of our ecosystem. A bell on a collar is helpful, but can be unsafe for the cat. House cats are just that -- they belong in the house, not outside. Ever.
If it's possible to grow your own birdseed, do so, or else buy from an organic supplier. Same with suet, bread, peanuts, and other treats for birds and wildlife.
Not only are pesticides contaminating our air, so is the DU this administration continues to pepper Iraq and Afghanistan with. California is effected by China's pollution. And on it goes.
As someone once said, "birds have bills, and they're still singing."
for the record DDT is made in Los Angeles, exported around the world, with other chemicals, it should be noted that the number of chemicals invented since WWII, that never existed before on the face of the earth, is in the the hudreds of thousands, 26 thousand of which are long chain hydrocarbons that don't break down, 4 to 5 thousand which are measurable in any human thru out the world at any give moment, the socalled benign effects of single chemicals are ezpanded of course with other chemicals, not to mention the birds much faster matabulism, could be a loud/or silent worning, that as Marshell Maclean, said, "the world won't end in a bang, but in a whimper"
The trick is to make the damned chemicals internationally illegal and to ban their manufacture or sale. It's possible now to get organically grown produce from central and south America that does not involve use of toxins. Organic farming can be carried out anyplace, not just in the US or Europe, or in your own back yard. That having been said, there's still an energy cost in shipping even organically grown produce halfway around the world.
I stick mostly with locally grown organic produce, of which there is plenty in the Pacific Northwest. It is nice to know though that it's possible, if not inexpensive, to enjoy the occasional off-season fruit that's been organically grown elsewhere. Farmers in Argentina and other like places do deserve credit for laying off on the toxins, and boycotting them will simply put them under.
Domestic cats, when I find them on my very bird-friendly property, get whacked with a .17 calibre air rifle. They tend to stay away after that.
Eat local, seasonal, organic produce.
Duh.
The article forgot to mention the most important role of birds...many eat bugs, the bugs that ruin crops.
Lets not discuss the domestic Cat either, they are devastating the wild bird populations. Cats should be muzzled or at least have a bell around their necks.
Well, we needn't see it as a boycott when we show some discrimination about what we choose to eat. I'm interested in Frosty Bunny's comment that supermarkets are required to show place of origin on produce - that very rarely happens where I live. Beyond that, the problem is not only fresh produce.
A favorite store, because of its remarkable variety of goods at favorable prices, is Trader Joe's. Yet Trader Joe's is one of the worst offenders, in terms of tricky, obscurantist labelling of canned and packaged goods. How often does one of these products indicate where it is grown, produced or shipped?
As a consumer, I HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT I AM BUYING. That includes place of origin. This is not a matter of victimizing third-world farmers; it is a matter of choosing which food I consider safe or suitable for my use.
The solution will best be reached though legislation and, especially, regulatory enforcement. Consistent regulation at the federal level would serve the purpose best, but if this is not politically feasible, then do it through state legislation! It's a start ...
truenorth (April 4th, 2008 2:13 p.m.) writes,
…banned in the EU and US. I wonder where are these chemicals are being made? Who owns the companies making and distributing them? The US and Canada have always continued to make and sell products, deemed too dangerous for ourselves, to other countries. This has to be stopped.
__________
This is the real question, whether we're talking pesticides, cluster bombs, or new marketing strategies for tobacco products.
I was recently having a conversation with another Senior about the fact that living in Chicago in the 30's and 40's, we were Excited when summer fruits appeared in the markets. We waited during winter months for berries and melons and watermelon! Now, theplunderers of the planet have taken the fun out of that. But to learn that so many species of birds have either disappeared or re at risk is too tragic. Someone said that these people who care only about profit know the price of everything, but the value of Nothing.
I agree about a boycott, and I think that everyone reading the above article should forward it to their representativew and senators in Washington.
Lizzard
This might make you feel a little better, they still use DDT in many places in the world. There is seventeen square miles of it off the coast of southern california (could be why no one swims in the ocean there anymore and why contact with the water will make you sick)
DDT has been used for 40 years to irradicate mosquitos and it doesn't work. Part of the reason it doesn't work is because it also kills the natural preator's for mosquitos. That being said, Malaria is a treatable disease, there is no reason anyone should die from this illness. If you have a balanced ecology you will reduce incidence of disease. DDT is not harmless to human beings....you should do your own research...
Birding is one of my (and many American's) favorite hobbies. I would hate to go out in the field in a few years and see only starlings.
Boycott's are 'divisive'. When used, they seperate a purchasing power, by a consumer, from the chemical companies profit. This power, of the consumer, can then be taken as an opportunity to re-invest the broken capitol into a local market.
In this paradigm: one needs a direct alternative to replenish the product (such as a local grower or, given the product is sensitive to regional growth, the boycotter must make the decision to sacrifice the luxury of 'mango's' and accept the alternative given), but it can be taken beyond only replenishing a product.
A boycott is capable of stripping capitol away from the company targeted. It also (when replacements exist) is deconstructing the global market ideology, and this can have heavy impacts to uniting community members on similar interests (given the major media isn't constructing the premise of your boycott). It brings a "village" like chain reaction of communication to unite the groups on a particular interest.
It may also have negative effects, and bring FRIEDMANIC FREE MARKET submissives to use forcefull solutions in order to protect the retailers from bankruptcy, and to keep society wtihin the consent of the market interest.
Consumers will have to shed their vanity for 'perfect' looking products. Imperfections willl need to be welcomed by our thinking.
Overall, boycotts (I might add) are not strikes. They ought to involve carefull planning and leadership, strong support from an alternative grower and adjacent communities, and protection from the brutalities of the commercially funded garrison state.
Banning DDT was a tragedy that costs millions of human lives per year. The book from 45 years ago was based on falsified data. DDT is harmeless to humans and banning it was an inhuman act of total selfishness. Birds were not killed by DDT. Some studies were selected and others thrown out to show that DDT was harmful. There is no proof that DDT killed any birds at all. The claim was that it weakened egg shells but the data was bogus. This was dealt with by a founding member of greenpeace who trying to refute an attacker of greenpeace researched the issue and to his surprise discovered that the data was false. He then dedicated himself to debunking myths supported by the organization he helped found. Greens can be assholes too. DDT accumulates in tissues but causes no harm. For the sake of avoiding having DDT in our bodies we killed off millions. One of the posters speaks of being exposed to DDT clouds repeatedly, they tought it was cool. Why isn't the poster dead? or sick? Be happy there is no DDT. Only regions with malaria are punished and there ain't no such thing here. To hell with Bangladeshis, let them die to preserve the purity of our (fat) bodily fluids(1 million each year, less than 100 during DDT). Unbelievable? So it is, but true.
"What should you put on your bird-friendly grocery list? Organic coffee, for one thing. Most mass-produced coffee is grown in open fields heavily treated with fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. In contrast, traditional small coffee farmers grow their beans under a canopy of tropical trees, which provide shade and essential nitrogen, and fertilize their soil naturally with leaf litter. Their organic, fair-trade coffee is now available in many coffee shops and supermarkets, and it is recommended by the Audubon Society, the American Bird Conservancy and the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center.
Organic bananas should also be on your list. Bananas are typically grown with one of the highest pesticide loads of any tropical crop. Although bananas present little risk of pesticide ingestion to the consumer, the environment where they are grown is heavily contaminated." (excerpt from original article in the Times, written by the ornithologist, Bridget Stutchbury, mentioned above)
Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30stutchbury.html?_r=1&scp=3&s...
Thanks Dr. Don
BOycotting the produce from developing countries is a short-term, selfish solution. If it works, it will collapse the export markets needed by those developing countries, reducing their much needed foreign exchange earnings and ultimately in high unemployment. What then? Mass emigration.
So go ahead and boycott those farmers in poorer countries instead of working to eliminating the use of the chemicals anywhere in the world. Eventually, you'll be able to explain your actions to those farmers when they come in search of a job and a better life for their families.
--------
Further, the ultimate reason for the use of these toxins is the fickle nature of Western consumers. The fruits and vegetables they buy not only have to be fresh, they must look "perfect", like they do on TV. They don't mind the disgusting white film on apples, they've grown accustom to simply washing it off (and wishing the chemical didn't seep into the flesh through the skin).
A boycott only serves the elites. It is divisive. It divides working class people on a global scale, when they should realize their common predicament: they are dying from producing with those chemicals and we will begin dying from consuming them.
It's just Monsanto whose GM corn has been proven by Indiana University at Bloomington recently that the pollen from the GM corn kills insects in the water's micro-ecosystem. So what else is new? Global Chemical companies answer to no one.
I wish people would be as concerned about what happened to all of our butterflies in the past fifty years and now the bee collapse disease issue. They have probably been affected by GM pollen as well.
Like those Franenfoods, don't you?
Well, stop buying imported food if you want to do something.
Eat what is in season in your area. Find an organic farm to buy from, Start a food coop.
Boycott visiting those countries. Don't buy their products.
Those huge companies like Monsanto to sold agent orange to the government during the Vietnam war and sells all sorts of deadly pesticides and herbicides are the enemies and their partners are the corrupt governments of those Latin American Countries.
Get rid of Monsanto and the deadly chemical companies and bring back our wildlife.
Companies which are destroying our planet should have their CEO's placed in prison for the rest of their days.
It's all about greed, and the stockholders who don't even realize what they are investing in.
This is the kind of thing where American consumers could make an impact if they chose to. Don't buy produce from these countries, period. We have enough problems trying to keep our own agribiz industry safe and relatively uncorrupted. Imagine what horrors as far as chemicals are on the produce from countries with WORSE problems. Buy organic if you can. Not only is it better for you, it's better for the environment. And, this is just my personal opinion but check the label for "origin" on organic food too. Not all of it's grown in developed countries that have enough sense to ban DDT etc. I personally don't trust 3rd world countries to certify anything as being "organic" when I barely trust our own country to be honest about that. Last but not least, GARDEN! Nearly everyone can at least grow a container or two of something. Then you can control what goes into your food, and it tastes so much better too.
"I remember the days as a kid when we would play behind the DDT trucks. We thought "the fog" was so cool."
I remember from my childhood in St. Lucia, W.I., of the small planes flying overhead to spray herbicides and pesticides to protect the banana crops. My cousins (and sometimes me too) would load up the Gramaxone sprayer to manually spray pesticides...we thought the back-pack sprayer was cool. It reminded us of the Ghostbusters movie.
This was in the 1990s, long after the chemical (Gramaxone) had been banned for use in Europe or North America. But the bananas were exported to Europe...and the chemicals undoubtedly gave my grandmother cancer, and she died in 1996.
We are killing ourselves.
Boycott anything coming from South and Latin America and begin with Walmart as who knows just what we are importing from China. When the birds go,so does Civilization. And boycott the industries in Canada and America and wherever else these deadly toxins are fabricated. Boycott and educate consumers and join you National Audobon.
World Wide Awareness! The Internet! Informed people who will not buy into bad things because they morally are against it. Damn the profit!
It has to come about using peer pressure.
...banned in the EU and US. I wonder where are these chemicals are being made? Who owns the companies making and distributing them? The US and Canada have always continued to make and sell products, deemed too dangerous for ourselves, to other countries. This has to be stopped.
In Canada we can (at least in theory) apply our own laws to behaviour of our citizens no matter where they are - so a canadian molesting children in Thailand can be charged in canada. Same thing needs to be done with producing and selling harmful products banned from our own marketplace - such as asbestos, which we continue to mine and sell overseas despite the horrific consequences of it's use.
I went outside after reading this and though it is a really rainy, cold day (here in Maine, April IS the cruelest month) I heard the flock of redwinged blackirds (my favorite)and I smiled and felt good inside for the first time all day. We ARE poisoning ourselves, it's happening so fast.
I remember the days as a kid when we would play behind the DDT trucks. We thought "the fog" was so cool.
The holly tree outside my window is still loaded with red berries, and I've been waiting - apparently in vain - for the the birds to arrive and eat them.
You know you're old when you look back on the "good old days" with longing. But it's hard to lose the birds. And it's hard when children get headaches. Absolutely unheard of when I was growing up.
We could make this a better world for birds and children. We could refuse to allow poisoned food into our country if we had the political will. We could reduce the stress on parents and create a better environment for our families and children. In some ways we've gone way back in time to when the robber barons were trampling the lives of working people. They're doing it again.
kathyodat
BLUEAPPLES
'we are killing ourselves and we don't even know it.' we've been killing ourselves for decades. but what i get pissed off about the most, is the fact we are taking these innocent creatures with us. here in europe we have mangoes from south america at exorbitant prices. they are the most unappetizing things i have ever laid eyes on. they look plastic and i'd bet my last euro that they taste even worse. there are other 'exotic' fruits i've never even heard of and wouldn't waste my money on. australia is another culprit for exporting exotic fruit. their mangoes don't look any better..........i tried one once, but i'm alright now.
We are also at war against insects. We spray tankers full of diesel and insecticide on our National Forests to kill insecrs that attack sick trees.
Then the birds eat them!
Certainly sounds like they are doing their part for the Mass Extinction no. XI.s
30% reduction in the populations of the world's vertebrate. (See the Living Planet Index in WWF's Living Planet Report.)
This needs more exposure in the general public.
Tell everyone you know about this problem . . . the one good thing here is the requirement of grocery stores to list the country of origin of produce, so it would be relatively easy to avoid the offending produce. We just need to ensure that everyone is aware of the problem.
we are killing ourselves and we don't even know it.
Adopt Aldo Leopold's "Land Ethic" as a model for living with the earth's biotic infrastructure. Read, "Sand County Almanac".
Stop all xenobiotic developments from being used! Take them out of your plastic grocery bag, and demand the plastic bags be discontinued.
Talk to the agricultural communities you live in. Bring them together to cultivate plantations based on local consumption. Make their efforts the backbone of your cultural identification. If they cannot produce oranges, then don't eat them. Find supplements. I'm sure other nutritious, seeming to be, exotic fruits are available (Passion fruit...) .
______
I empathize with NMBill. My community, in north central Ohio, acted as a hub for migratory resthavens. We experienced the hegemonic expulsion of wetlands to introduce unnecessary Wal-Mart consumptives. Others, became privatized, diked off from lake access to promote elitist hunting grounds, or ignored as a wasteground (via, failed progress).
The major consumptives are over a decade old and running strong, since we have the viability from Cedar Point (Fair) to fuel profit potentials. Now the nostalgia of casino development strips the rights from nature's shoreways to highways of profit. These "hangman solutions" are a small example of where the thoughts of 'elected' officials slide.
I spoke at a mitigation once designed to bring together "hangman solutions" into a niche of euphamized "Dream Big" propaganda. My declarations issued a professional community of arts & science graduate colonies working with the local community college to increase commercial vitality, as with the well-being of the county. But, most importantly, I stressed how the unused shorefront acreage can offer unique observative scientific opportunity to land/water/environemental management that, in the future, could act as staple grounds for professional data.
The response of support was absent, entirely. I'm young, so my advice is obviously an issue based on age. Although, I spoke clear and loud with detail and examples, to only be recieved as alienating or radical. Most people were concerned with building the "new urbanistic" greenwash versions of stripmalls, where they could consume up-to-date products and ignore their surroundings.
It wasn't until the meeting had ended, I stood outside, confounded, when a handful (out of more than a hundred people) came up and approved of what I had to say. This was comforting, but reality sets in and the site is still in the direction of "new urbanism". It offers a chance for "greenspace", but for them that's no different from a grass park. These developments cannot be stopped in such a small community at a time when environmental campaigning is at a peak for clarification, because valuable critical information is silenced by the 'glitz and glamour' of ollar signs.
Here is a link to this development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huron,_Ohio#The_ConAgra_Project
Try and stop it, if you can. And if anyone knows of an activist group that will do more than protest in the area, put up a link.