Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A New Technology

  • Chapter
Insects, Experts, and the Insecticide Crisis

Abstract

Insecticides are the foundations of most insect control strategies in agriculture, particularly in the industrialized countries. Their present status as an integral part of agricultural technology reflects many successes in the invention and development of particular compounds for use by the farming industries. Moreover, reliance on insecticides presupposes a stable chemical industry to manufacture, formulate, and market the toxic materials. This chapter outlines the major events in the invention of insecticides and the development of the insecticide industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference Notes

  1. L. O. Howard, A History of Applied Entomology (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Inst., 1930), p. 64 (hereafter cited as Howard, History).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Walter S. Hough and A. Freeman Mason, Spraying, Dusting and Fumigating of Plants (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1951), pp. 3–9 (hereafter cited as Hough and Mason, Spraying).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Harold H. Shepard, The Chemistry and Action of Insecticides (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951), pp. 15, 21 (hereafter cited as Shepard, Chemistry).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Adelynne Hiller Whitaker, A History of Federal Pesticide Regulation in the United States to 1947, Ph.D. Thesis, Emory Univ., 1974, p. 101.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ibid., pp. 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ibid., pp. 7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ibid., pp. 81–102.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 36 Stat. 331, Sect. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Williams Haynes, American Chemical Industry (New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1945), Vol. 3, p. 112 (hereafter cited as Haynes, Chemical).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ibid., p. 115.

    Google Scholar 

  11. B. R. Coad, Recent Experimental Work on Poisoning Cotton-Boll Weevils, USDA Bull. No. 731, July 19, 1918, 15 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Douglas Helms, The Cotton Boll Weevil in Texas and Louisiana, 1892–1907, M. A. Thesis, Fla. State Univ., 1970, 127 pp; Howard, History, pp. 124–132.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Shepard, Chemistry, pp. 25–26.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Haynes, Chemical, Vol. 3, pp. 209–215.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ibid., p. 110.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hough and Mason, Spraying, pp. 11–12. E. B. Blakeslee, Use of Toxic Gases as a Possible Means of Control of the Peach-Tree Borer, USDA Bull. No. 796, Oct. 21, 1919, 23 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shepard, Chemistry, p. 272.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hough and Mason, Spraying, p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Haynes, Chemical, Vol. 4, p. 332; Vol. 5, pp. 315–316.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Haynes, Chemical, Vol. 5, pp. 316–317.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Andreas Buxtorf and M. Spindler, Fifteen Years of Geigy Pest Control (Basel: Buchdruckerei Karl Werner AG, 1954) (hereafter cited as Buxtorf and Spindler, Fifteen Years). This book was originally published several years earlier under the title 10 Jahre Geigy Schädlingsbekämpfung. Although it is a company-sponsored, enthusiastic history, it contains a thorough review of the Geigy company’s efforts to discover, test, manufacture, and market DDT insecticides.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Insecticides are frequently classified as stomach or contact materials. The former must be ingested by the insect before poisoning occurs. The latter can kill merely by contacting the outside of the animal. An obvious advantage of contact poisons is that killing may be affected before the insect dines on the protected woolen textiles, while a stomach poison could begin to protect only after damage is done to the cloth. Some materials such as DDT possess both stomach- and contact-killing properties.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Paul Herman Mueller, Histoire du DDT (Alençon: Maison Poulet-Malassis, 1948). I thank Christine Newman for translating the article.

    Google Scholar 

  24. H. Mooser, Schweiz. Med. Wochenschr. 74 (1944): 947

    Google Scholar 

  25. T. F. West and G. A. Campbell, DDT (London: Chapman and Hall, 1950), pp. 3–4 (hereafter cited as West and Campbell, DDT).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Victor Froelicher, The story of DDT, Soap and Chemical Specialties 20 (1944): 115, 117, 119, 145 (hereafter cited as Froelicher, DDT); quoted in West and Campbell, DDT, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Buxtorf and Spindler, Fifteen Years. There is some ambiguity about what type of information was given to the Germans. Mueller implies that the information was delivered only to the U.S. and the United Kingdom, but Buxtorf and Spindler imply that the information was also given to the Germans. The latter authors display a picture of a patent from the Deutsches Reich along with patents from France, the U.S., Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Froelicher, DDT.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Henry A. Wallace to Chiefs of Bureaus and Officers, Aug. 23, 1940, Record Group 7 (Records of the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine), National Archives (hereafter records from this group are cited as RG7NA).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Claude R. Wickard to Chiefs of Bureaus and Heads of Offices, Dec. 14, 1941, RG7NA.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Walter E. Dove, “Historical References to Man and Animal’s Contribution to War Effort,” n.d., RG7NA. Knipling assumed the directorship of the laboratory in June 1942 and guided it for the duration of the war years. He later wrote that the real moving influence in getting the laboratory started came from Col. William S. Stone and Gen. J. S. Simmons (U.S. Army), who sat on committees of the National Research Council. According to Knipling’s estimation, the Office of Scientific Research and Development gave the Orlando facility $815,000 between March 1942 and October 1945. In addition, the laboratory received from other agencies equipment, aircraft, personnel, and administrative supervision.

    Google Scholar 

  32. The total cost of operating the research station was estimated to be approximately $1 million [Edward F. Knipling, “Insect Control Investigations of the Orlando, Florida, Laboratory during World War II,” in Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1948 (Washington, D.C., 1948), pp. 331–348] (hereafter cited as Knipling, Insect Control).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Knipling, Insect Control.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ruric C. Roark to Percy N. Annand, Aug. 27, 1942, RG7NA.

    Google Scholar 

  35. W. H. White to Percy N. Annand, Jan. 28, 1942, RG7NA.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ruric C. Roark to Percy N. Annand, Jan. 2, 1942, RG7NA.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Avery S. Hoyt to Morse Salisbury, July 2, 1942, RG7NA.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ruric C. Roark to Percy N. Annand, Jan. 6, 1945, RG7NA.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Knipling, Insect Control.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Walter E. Dove, “Contributions to War Effort: Summary of More Important Developments to January 24, 1945,” n.d., RG7NA.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Fred C. Bishopp to D. L. Van Dine, Sept. 2, 1943, RG7NA.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Annonymous, DDT not recommended for agricultural use, Oil Paint Drug Rep. 146 (Nov. 6, 1944): 4.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Agricultural Association discusses DDT, ibid., Vol. 146 (Oct. 30, 1944): 3.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Report of Special Committee on DDT (S.A. Rohwer, Chairman) J. Econ. Entomol. 38 (1945): 144.

    Google Scholar 

  45. S. W. Simmons, “The Use of DDT Insecticide in Human Medicine,” in DDT, Paul H. Mueller, ed. (Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag, 1959), pp. 264–265. Gordon Harrison discussed the frustration of the Sardinian Campaign because it failed to eradicate the malarial vector. Anopheles labranchiae, even though transmission of malaria was halted, in Mosquitoes, Malaria and Man (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1978), Chap. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Production and Marketing Administration, The Pesticide Situation for 1952–53 (Washington, D.C.: USDA, 1953), p. 4 (hereafter cited as Production and Marketing Administration, Pesticide Situation).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ibid., pp. 4–5, 16.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Samuel A. Graham, Forest Entomology, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1952), p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  49. D. Price Jones, “Agricultural entomology,” in History of Entomology, Ray F. Smith, Thomas E. Mittler, and Carroll N. Smith, eds. (Palo Alto, California: Annual Reviews, Inc., 1973), pp. 326–327.

    Google Scholar 

  50. E. Dwight Sanderson and Leonard Marion Peairs, Insect Pests of Farm, Garden and Orchard, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1921), p. 144.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Roscoe E. Hill, Ephraim Hixson, and Martin H. Muma, Corn rootworm control test with benzene hexachloride, DDT, nitrogen fertilizers and crop rotation, J. Econ. Entomol. 41 (1948): 392–401.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Velmar W. Davis, Austin S. Fox, Robert P. Jenkins, and Paul A. Andrilenas, Economic Consequences of Restricting the Use of Organochlorine Insecticides on Cotton, Corn, Peanuts, and Tobacco, Agricultural Economic Report No. 178 (Washington, D.C.: USDA, 1970), p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  53. John H. Berry, “Effect of restricting the use of pesticides on corn-soybean farms,” in Economic Research on Pesticides for Policy Decision Making, proceedings of a symposium, Apr. 27–29, 1970 (Washington, D.C.: USDA, 1971), p. 139.

    Google Scholar 

  54. C. L. Metcalf, W. P. Flint, and R. L. Metcalf, Destructive and Useful Insects (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1951), p. 354.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Gordon Harrison, Mosquitoes, Malaria and Man (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1978), Chap. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Buxtorf and Spindler, Fifteen Years.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Agricultural Research Administration, USDA, “Producers of DDT and DDT Insecticides,” mimeo, 1945.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Production and Marketing Administration, The Pesticide Situation, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Economic Research Service, DDT Used in Farm Production, Agricultural Economic Report No. 188 (Washington, D.C.: USDA, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Census of Manufacturers: 1954, Vol. 2, Pt. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1957). The figures quoted are for firms classified in Standard Industrial Code 2897.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Anonymous, Merck means over 1200 fine chemicals, Fortune, June, 1947, pp. 104–111+.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Anonymous, The chemical surge, Business Week, Mar. 18, 1950, pp. 117–118 (hereafter cited as Chemical surge, Business Week).

    Google Scholar 

  63. S. B. Self, Chemists goal, Barron’s Jan. 7, 1946, pp. 9 +.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Anonymous, The chemical century, Fortune, Mar. 1950, pp. 68–76 +.

    Google Scholar 

  65. J. V. Sherman, New Products assure growth in chemical industry, Barron’s, Feb. 19, 1945, pp. 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Chemical surge, Business Week.

    Google Scholar 

  67. For DuPont, see Annual Report 1946 and Annual Report 1948 (Wilmington, Del.: E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., 1947, 1949). For Monsanto, see Report of 44th Annual Meeting of Stockholders, Mar. 27, 1945

    Google Scholar 

  68. Monsanto, Report of 45th Annual Meeting of Monsanto Stockholders, Mar. 26, 1946

    Google Scholar 

  69. Monsanto, Prospectus, Apr. 8, 1946; all published by Monsanto Co., St. Louis, Mo. The entry of DuPont into DDT production was noted in Oil, Paint, and Drug Reporter, Jan. 24, 1944, p. 37. Monsanto’s activities with DDT were reported in ibid., Aug. 21, 1944, p. 40.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., The Visible Hand (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1977), pp. 374–375, 473–476.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Harold H. Shepard, The Chemistry and Action of Insecticides (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951), p. 18. Shepard notes that in 1941,56% of the lead arsenate produced was used on apples.

    Google Scholar 

  72. R. M. Smock and A. M. Neubert, Apples and Apple Products (New York: Interscience Pub., Inc., 1950), pp. 1–3 (hereafter cited as Smock and Neubert, Apples).

    Google Scholar 

  73. J. C. Folger and S. M. Thomson, The Commercial Apple Industry of North America (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1921), p. 3 (hereafter cited as Folger and Thomson, Apple Industry).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  74. Joseph W. Ellison, The beginnings of the apple industry in Oregon, Agric. Hist. 11 (1937): 322–343.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Chester C. Hampson, “Trends in the apple industry,” Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 277, Feb. 1933, p. 9 (hereafter cited as Hampson, Trends).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Hoyt Lemmons and Rayburn D. Tousley, The Washington apple industry. I. Its geographic basis, Econ. Geog. 21 (1945): 161–182 (hereafter cited as Lemmons and Tousley, Apple industry, I).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Willard V. Longley, Some economic aspects of the apple industry in Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Dept. of Agric. Bull. No. 113, Nov. 1932, pp. 1, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Hampson, Trends, p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Folger and Thomson, Apple Industry, pp. 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Rayburn D. Tousley and Hoyt Lemmons, The Washington apple indsutry. II. Economic considerations, Econ. Geog. 21 (1945): 252–268 (hereafter cited as Tousley and Lemon, Apple indsutry, II).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. C. H. Zuroske, Washington Apple Production Costs and Labor Requirements, Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 644, Oct., 1962, 16 pp. (hereafter cited as Zuroske, Washington apples).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Joseph Waldo Ellison, Cooperative movement in Oregon apple industry, 1910–1929, Agric. Hist. 13 (1939): 77–96

    Google Scholar 

  83. Joseph W. Ellison, Marketing problems of northwestern apples, 1929–1940, Agric. Hist. 16 (1942): 103–115

    Google Scholar 

  84. C. Brewster Coulter, The big Y country: Marketing problems and organization, 1900–1920, Agric. Hist. 46 (1972): 471–488.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Zuroske, Washington apples.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Tousley and Lemmons, Apple industry, II.

    Google Scholar 

  87. “Royal Commission Investigating the Apple Industry of the Province of Nova Scotia,” Report (Halifax: Minister of Public Works and Mines, King’s Printer, 1930), pp. 10–11.

    Google Scholar 

  88. G. P. Scoville, Fruit Farms Analysed: 36 Years of Farm Business Records in Niagra County, Cornell Univ. Agric. Econ. 769, Feb. 27, 1951, 38 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Tousley and Lemmons, Apple industry, II; Lemmons and Tousley, Apple industry, I.

    Google Scholar 

  90. The average figure of $5948 comes from Scoville, Fruit Farms. Data on Niagra County growers come from G. P. Scoville, Apple Costs, 1943, Cornell Univ. Agric. Econ. 509, Feb., 1945, 20 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Tousley and Lemmons, Apple industry, II.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Van Travis and B. F. Stanton, Costs and Use of Labor in Harvesting Apples for Fresh Market, Hudson Valley, New York, 1959 and 1960, Cornell Univ. Agric. Econ. Res. 63, Apr. 1961, 13 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Washington State Apple Commission, Apple Research Digest, No. 4, Nov., 1946, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Washington State Apple Commission, Apple Research Digest, Nos. 1–84 (Nov., 1946-Dec, 1953), constantly advocated ways to reduce packing costs and bruising. Tousley and Lemmons strongly recommended a renewed effort to establish cooperative marketing for Washington apples, in Apple industry, II.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Edward H. Forbush and Charles H. Fernald, The Gypsy Moth (Boston: Wright and Potter Printing Co., State Printers, 1896), pp. 142–143, 473.

    Google Scholar 

  97. C. L. Metcalf and W. P. Flint, Destructive and Useful Insects, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1939), pp. 244–245 (hereafter cited as Metcalf and Flint, Destructive). In 1941, 55.6% of the lead arsenate used in the U.S. was on apples (Shepard, Chemistry, p. 18).

    Google Scholar 

  98. Metcalf and Flint, Destructive, pp. 599, 594.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Calculated from figures in W. M. Bristol, Washington Apple Production Costs for the 1944–45 Season, Wash. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 474, June, 1946, 24 pages

    Google Scholar 

  100. M. T. Buchanan, Washington Apple Production Costs During the 1943–44 Season, Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 446, July, 1944, 14 pages

    Google Scholar 

  101. M. T. Buchanan, A. W. Peterson, and G. A. Lee, “Washington Apple Production Costs, 1939–43,” Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 429, May, 1943, 11 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Tousley and Lemmons (Apple industry, H) analyze comparative cost changes between Washington and New York. See M. T. Buchanan, Washington, for Washington State figures; Scoville, Apple costs, for New York data.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Walter S. Hough first studied Colorado codling moth larvae resistant to lead arsenate in 1928 [Relative resistance to arsenical poisoning of two codling moth strains,J. Econ. Entomol 21 (1928): 325–329].

    Google Scholar 

  104. Lemmons and Tousley, Apple industry, I.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Howard Baker, “Spider mites, insects, and DDT,” in Insects: The Yearbook of Agriculture, 1952, p. 562 (hereafter cited as Baker, Spider mites).

    Google Scholar 

  106. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  107. J. H. Newton and George M. List, Codling moth and mite control in 1948, J. Econ. Entomol 42 (1949): 346–348.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Calculated from Zuroske, Washington apples.

    Google Scholar 

  109. For an early review of the airblast machines, see O. C. French, Spraying equipment for pest control, Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 666, May, 1942, pp. 34–38

    Google Scholar 

  110. James G. Horsfall, Fungicides and their Action (Waltham, Mass.: Chronica Botanica Co. 1945), p. 78.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Calculated from Zuroske, Washington apples.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Arthur D. Borden, Control of codling moth on pears with a DDT spray, J. Econ. Entomol. 41 (1948): 118–119.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Zuroske, Washington apples.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Recommendations for Codling Moth, Orchard Mite, and Scale Control in Washington for 1942, State Coll. of Wash. Ext. Bull. 279, Feb., 1942, 12 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Spray Programs for Insects and Diseases of Tree Fruits in Eastern Washington, State Coll. of Wash. Ext. Bull. 419, Feb., 1950, 29 pp (herefater referred to as Spray programs, Ext. Bull., 1950).

    Google Scholar 

  116. S. C. Hoyt and J. D. Gilpatrick, “Pest management on deciduous fruits: Multidisciplinary aspects,” in Integrated Pest Management, J. Lawrence Apple and Ray F. Smith, eds. (New York: Plenum Pub. Co., 1976), pp. 133–147.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Baker, Spider mites; E. J. Newcomer and F. P. Dean, Studies of orchard acaricides, J. Econ. Entomol. 41 (1948): 691–694.

    Google Scholar 

  118. E. J. Newcomer and F. P. Dean, Effects of xanthone, DDT, and other insecticides on the Pacific mite, J. Econ. Entomol. 39 (1946): 783–786.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Newcomer and Dean, Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Spray programs, Ext. Bull., 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Baker, Spider mites.

    Google Scholar 

  122. B. A. Croft, “Tree fruit pest management,” in Introduction to Insect Pest Management, Robert L. Metcalf and William H. Luckmann, eds. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1975), p. 481.

    Google Scholar 

  123. B. F. Stanton, B. A. Dominick, Jr., and S. C. Fan, Variability in Apple Production Costs and Returns, Cornell Univ. Agric. Econ. Res. 17, May, 1959, 35 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  124. C. G. Garman, How to Increase Efficiency in Spraying Apples: Some results of a study made by K. L. Robinson of 56 fruit tree farms in New York State in 1946, Cornell Univ., Agric. Econ. 654, Jan. 1948, 11 pp.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington, USA

    John H. Perkins

Authors
  1. John H. Perkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1982 Plenum Press, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Perkins, J.H. (1982). A New Technology. In: Insects, Experts, and the Insecticide Crisis. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3998-4_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3998-4_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4684-4000-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-3998-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation