Widespread adoption of the new insecticides in American agriculture was essentially complete by the early 1950s, but it was not uncontested. Safety to humans and other species constituted a recognized problem from the beginning, but the exact nature and magnitude of the threats continues to be a subject for bitter debate. A second sort of problem emerged almost simultaneously with the introduction of the new insecticides. Are they a stable technological tool? Resistance of insects to the poisons and the destruction of natural enemies of insect pests threatened to unleash the tremendous reproductive power of pest species in a way that would render the insecticides useless or worse in the eyes of their users.


Natural Enemy Methyl Parathion Boll Weevil Pesticide Poisoning Hydrocyanic Acid 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference Notes

  1. 1.
    Roger Conant, No joy in an insect-free world, Entomol. News 55 (Dec. 1944):258–259. Discovery of DDT residues in milk was viewed with particular alarm by both medical personnel and entomologists because of milk’s importance as a food for infants. Entomologists learned by 1947 that direct treatment of cows with DDT for fly control caused residues to appear in milk; further investigation indicated that mere treatment of barn walls led to the residue problem. The USD A recommended against use of DDT around dairy animals, and newspaper publicity brought the problem to the public.Google Scholar
  2. 1a.
    [See testimony of F. C. Bishopp before the Delaney Committee (U.S. Congress, House Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food Products, Chemicals in Food Products, Hearings on H. Res. 323, 81st Congress, 2nd sess., 1951, pp. 387, 409, 521–522, 527–528)Google Scholar
  3. 1c.
    New York Times, U. S. seeks to keep milk free of DDT, April 23, 1949, p. 19Google Scholar
  4. 1d.
    New York Times, Hazard to health from DDT denied, July 11, 1949, p. 25.]Google Scholar
  5. 1e.
    The series “Correspondence Relating to Bureau Programs and Plans, 1930–1951,” General Administrative Records, Record Group 7, National Archives (RG7NA), contains reports of conferences and meetings between the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine (BEPQ), USDA, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, and the chemical industry on the problems posed by toxic residues; BEPQ’s Fred C. Bishopp was clearly concerned about the problem. Edward F. Knipling of the BEPQ argued for more tests on the chronic toxicity of insecticides to livestock in 1948 (E.F. Knipling to P.N. Annand, Aug. 3, 1948, RG7NA). Bishopp (Asst. Chief of BEPQ) agreed (F.C. Bishopp, office memo., Aug. 3, 1948, RG7NA).Google Scholar
  6. 1f.
    Thomas R. Dunlap provides a critical review of the knowledge on toxicological hazards in the period 1945–1950 [DDT: Scientists, Citizens and Public Policy, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Wise, 1975, pp. 72–75 (hereafter cited as Dunlap, DDT)].Google Scholar
  7. 1g.
    Results of studies on insecticides during the late 1940s reflected the ambivalent attitude in the scientific community towards DDT. The compound at 5 lb. per acre caused definite wildlife losses while losses from 1 lb. per acre were much smaller or undetectable. The seriousness of losses at either dose remained controversial. Those who expressed concern were for the most part employees at the Fish and Wildlife Service. [See Clarence Cottam, DDT and its effects on fish and wildlife, J. Econ. Entomol. 39 (1946): 44–52Google Scholar
  8. 1h.
    John L. George and Robert T. Mitchell, The effects of feeding DDT-treated insects to nestling birds, J. Econ. Entomol 40 (1947): 782–789Google Scholar
  9. 1i.
    Lowell Adams, Mitchell G. Hanavan, Neil W. Hosley, and David W. Johnston, The effects on fish, birds, and mammals of DDT used in the control of forest insects in Idaho and Wyoming, J. Wild. Manage. 13 (1949): 245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 1j.
    Earl S. Hearld, Effects of DDT-oil solutions upon amphibians and reptiles, Herpetologica 5 (1949): 117–120Google Scholar
  11. 1k.
    John L. George and William H. Stickel, Wildlife effects of DDT dust used for tick control on a Texas prairie, The Am. Midl. Nat. 42 (1949): 228–237.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 1l.
    Others expressed less concern, especially about “light” damage from low doses of DDT. [See S. Charles Kendeigh, “Bird Populations Studies in the Coniferous Forest Biome during a Spruce Budworm Outbreak,” Biol. Bull. No. 1, Dept. of Lands and Forests, Ontario, 1947, 100 pagesGoogle Scholar
  13. 1m.
    Charles T. Brues, Changes in the insect fauna of a New England woodland following the application of DDT, Harvard Forest Papers No. 1, 1947, 18 pp.Google Scholar
  14. 1n.
    C. H. Hoffman and E. P. Merkel, Fluctuations in insect populations associated with aerial applications of DDT to forests,J. Econ. Entomol. 41 (1948): 464–473Google Scholar
  15. 1o.
    C. H. Hoffman and J. P. Linduska, Some considerations of the biological effects of DDT, Sci. Mon. 69 (1949): 104–114. See also Dunlap, DDT, pp. 90–118.Google Scholar
  16. 2.
    Federal Register, Sept. 17, 1949, p. 5724.Google Scholar
  17. 3.
    James Whorton provides a thorough discussion of the problems, Before Silent Spring (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1974), 288 pp. (hereafter cited as Whorton, Before Silent Spring). See also Dunlap, DDT, pp. 34–63.Google Scholar
  18. 4.
    Whorton, Before Silent Spring, pp. 246–249.Google Scholar
  19. 5.
    U.S. Congress, House Resolution 323 (81:1), June 20, 1950.Google Scholar
  20. 6.
    F. C. Bishopp to Bailey D. Pepper, Mar. 30, 1951, RG7NA; S. A. Rohwer to Stanley B. Freeborn, Nov. 23, 1949, RG7NA.Google Scholar
  21. 7.
    It is interesting to note that the USDA did not have a uniform opinion on the need for new regulations. Bishopp testified that no new laws were needed, but E. L. Griffen (assistant chief, Insecticide Division, Production and Marketing Administration) believed that the manufacturer should have to prove his product safe and effective before registration (Chemicals, pp. 558–559).Google Scholar
  22. 8.
    68 Stat. 511–517.Google Scholar
  23. 9.
    Paul Brooks, The House of Life: Rachel Carson at Work (Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Pub., Inc., 1972), 303 pagesGoogle Scholar
  24. 9a.
    Frank Graham, Jr., Since Silent Spring (Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Pub., Inc., 1970), 288 pp.Google Scholar
  25. 10.
    Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962), 368 pp. (hereafter cited as Carson, Silent Spring). Google Scholar
  26. 11.
    U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Government Operations, Intragency Coordination in Environmental Hazards (Pesticides) Hearings, Part 1, 88th Congress, 1st Sess., 1964, p. 216.Google Scholar
  27. 12.
    E. F. Knipling, Comments on Rachel Carson’s articles entitled “Silent Spring,” July 18, 1962, mimeo, 8 pages; copy supplied by E. F. Knipling, personal communication, Aug. 18, 1977.Google Scholar
  28. 13.
    United States Department of Agriculture, Comments on Rachel Carson’s articles in the New Yorker, mimeo, 2 pp. Knipling believes that this public release was prepared by staff writers and that he probably reviewed it before release.Google Scholar
  29. 14.
    Dunlap, DDT, pp. 150–155.Google Scholar
  30. 15.
    P. J. Chapman, The use of chemicals to control pests, N.Y. State Hortic. Soc. Proc. 108 (1963): 168–175. I thank David Pimentai for bringing this article to my attention.Google Scholar
  31. 16.
    W. J. Darby, Silence, Miss Carson, Chem. Eng. News 40 (Oct. 5, 1962): 60, 62–63.Google Scholar
  32. 17.
    I. L. Baldwin, Chemicals and pests, Science 137 (1962): 1042–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 18.
    Ibid., p. 1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 19.
    Carson, Silent Spring, pp. 258–259.Google Scholar
  35. 20.
    Committee on Pest Control and Wildlife Relationship, Part I: Evaluation of Pesticide-Wildlife Problems; Part II: Policy and Procedures for Pest Control; Part III: Research Needs (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1962, 1963), Publications 920-A, 920-B, and 920-C.Google Scholar
  36. 21.
    Book Review Digest, 1962–1964, lists 18 reviews. The articles by P. J. Chapman and I. L. Baldwin were not indexed.Google Scholar
  37. 22.
    Personal interviews with Carl B. Huffaker (Mar. 17–18, 1977), Paul DeBach (Mar. 22–23, 1977), and L. D. Newsom (June 1–2, 1978). Robert L. Metcalf recalled he had been shocked by Carson’s criticisms but reluctantly came to believe she had served a useful purpose (recorded in The Insect Alternative, NOVA series, WGBH, Boston, 1978, pp. 4–5).Google Scholar
  38. 23.
    Reece I. Sailer, personal interview, May 15–16, 1978. Paul DeBach also helped Carson gather information, but he mentioned no inhibitions about his activities (personal interview, Mar. 22–23, 1977).Google Scholar
  39. 24.
    President’s Science Advisory Committee, Use of Pesticides (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1963), 25 pp.Google Scholar
  40. 25.
    78 Stat. 190.Google Scholar
  41. 26.
    Carson, Silent Spring; see especially p. 297.Google Scholar
  42. 27.
    F. J. Oppenoorth, Development of resistance to insecticides, in The Future for Insecticides, Robert L. Metcalf and John J. McKelvey, Jr., eds. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976), p. 41.Google Scholar
  43. 28.
    Contemporary Pest Control Practices and Prospects, (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1975), Vol. 1, p. 2.Google Scholar
  44. 29.
    A. L. Melander, Can insects become resistant to sprays? J. Econ. Entomol. 7 (1914): 167–172Google Scholar
  45. 29a.
    A. L. Melander, Tolerance of San Jose scale to sprays, Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 174, Feb., 1923, 52 pp. Years later (1951)Google Scholar
  46. 29b.
    F. H. Babers and J. J. Pratt, Jr., argued that priority for noting resistance really belonged to J. B. Smith, The influence of environment on the life history of insects, Gard. and For. 10 (1897): 334. The recognition of resistance as an important phenomenon, however, occurred in ignorance of Smith’s work. Melander deserves the credit for stimulating interest in the subject among professional entomologists.Google Scholar
  47. 29c.
    See F. H. Babers and J. J. Pratt, Jr., Development of Insect Resistance to Insecticides—II, Bur. of Entomol. and PI. Quar.E-818, May, 1951.Google Scholar
  48. 30.
    For a review, see H. J. Quayle, The increase in resistance in insects to insecticides, J. Econ. Entomol. 36 (1943): 493–500 (hereafter cited as Quayle, Increase).Google Scholar
  49. 31.
    A. M. Boyce, C. O. Persing, and C. S. Barnhart, The resistance of citrus thrips to tartar emetic-sucrose treatment, J. Econ. Entomol. 35 (1942): 790–791.Google Scholar
  50. 32.
    For a review, see Walter S. Hough, Development and characteristics of vigorous or resistant strains of codling moth, Va. Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 91, Nov., 1943, 32 pp.Google Scholar
  51. 33.
  52. 34.
    H. J. Quayle, The development of resistance to hydrocyanic acid in certain scale insects, Hilgardia 11 (No. 5, 1938): 183–210.Google Scholar
  53. 34a.
    Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, 1st ed. (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1937), 364 pp. (hereafter cited as Dobzhansky, Genetics). Google Scholar
  54. 35.
    Dobzhansky, Genetics, 1st ed., p. 345.Google Scholar
  55. 36.
    Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1941), pp. 190–192.Google Scholar
  56. 37.
    R. C. Dickson, Inheritance of resistance to hydrocyanic acid fumigation in the California red scale, Hilgardia 13 (1941): 515–522.Google Scholar
  57. 38.
    Dobzhansky, Genetics, 2nd ed., p. 192.Google Scholar
  58. 39.
  59. 40.
    Harry S. Smith, Racial segregation in insect populations and its significance in applied entomology, J. Econ. Entomol. 34 (1941): 1–13.Google Scholar
  60. 41.
    Quayle, Increase.Google Scholar
  61. 42.
    H. R. Yust and R. L. Busbey, A comparison of the susceptibility of the so-called resistant and nonresistant strains of California red scale to methyl bromide, J. Econ. Entomol. 35 (1942): 343–345.Google Scholar
  62. 43.
    Dobzhansk’s effort to forge a new synthesis between genetics and evolution also benefitted from Quayle and Smith’s thoughts. Garland E. Allen notes that Dobzhansky’s work was an important component in the triumph of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection in the 1940s. The episode can be seen as an extraordinarily fruitful cross-fertilization between practical and theoretical scientists. See Garland E. Allen, Life Sciences in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1978), pp. 134–141.Google Scholar
  63. 43a.
    Even in the 1960s, Ernst Mayr of Harvard University argued that “typological thinking,” a metaphysical presupposition, had for centuries been a barrier to understanding evolution. A typologist believes there exists an ideal “type” for every species, and variation is an illusion or imperfection in nature. The opposite metaphysical view is that of the populationist, “who believes only variation is real and abstract statistics describe an illusory ‘average’ representing the species.” The difficulty some entomologists had in accepting the reality of resistance and its origins in a population may have reflected the argument between typologists and population-ists. See Ernst Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 1963), pp. 5–6.Google Scholar
  64. 44.
    For reviews, see: W. V. King and J. B. Gahan, Failure of DDT to control house flies, J. Econ. Entomol. 42 (1949): 405–409Google Scholar
  65. 44a.
    F. H. Babers, Development of Insect Resistance to Insecticides, Bur. of Entomol. and PL Quar. E-776, May 1949, 31 pp.Google Scholar
  66. 44b.
    The European cases of resistance were most intensively investigated in Italy: for a review see A. Missiroli, Riduzione o eradicazione delgi Anofeli? Riv. Parassitol. 8 (1947): 141–169.Google Scholar
  67. 45.
    Ezio Mosna, Su una caratteristica biologica del Culex pipiens autogenicus di latina, Riv. Parassitol. 8 (1947): 125–126Google Scholar
  68. 45a.
    Ezio Mosna, Culex pipiens autogenicus DDT-resistenti e loro controllo con octa-klor e esaclorocicloesano, Riv. Parassitol. 9 (1948): 19–25.Google Scholar
  69. 46.
    E. F. Knipling, Present status of mosquito resistance to insecticides, Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1 (1952): 389–394.Google Scholar
  70. 47.
    A. W. A. Brown, The challenge of insecticide resistance, Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 7 (1961): 6–19 (hereafter cited as Brown, The challenge).Google Scholar
  71. 48.
  72. 49.
    Anonymous, Typhus in Naples, Life 16 (Feb. 28, 1944): 36–37; Frederick C. Painton, The second battle of Naples—against lice, Reader’s Digest 44 (June, 1944): 21–22Google Scholar
  73. 49a.
    Allen Raymond, Now we can lick typhus, Sat. Ev. Post 216 (Apr. 22, 1944): 14–15+.Google Scholar
  74. 50.
    National Research Council, Division of Medical Sciences, Conference on Insecticide Resistance and Insect Physiology (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1952). NAS-NRC Publ. No. 219, 99 pp., see especially p. 88.Google Scholar
  75. 51.
    U.S. Congress, House, Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food Products, Chemicals in Food Products, Hearings on H. Res. 323, 81st Congress, 2nd sess., 1951, pp. 166–168, 189, 382, 640, 661, 774, 791, 891–892.Google Scholar
  76. 52.
    Brown, The challenge.Google Scholar
  77. 53.
    John S. Roussel and Dan Clower, Resistance to the chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides in the boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis Boh.), La. Exp. Stn. Circular No. 41, La. State Univ. and Agric. and Mech. College, Sept. , 5 pp. plus tables.Google Scholar
  78. 54.
    J. K. Walker, Jr. and R. L. Hanna, Control of boll weevils resistant to chlorinated hydrocarbons, J. Econ. Entomol. 53 (1960): 228–231.Google Scholar
  79. 55.
    Perry L. Adkisson, personal interview, May 30–31, 1978; Pest Control: An Assessment of Present and Alternative Technologies, Vol. 3, Cotton Pest Control (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1975), pp. 58–60 (hereafter cited as NAS, Cotton Pest Control). Google Scholar
  80. 56.
    U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Department of Agriculture Appropriations for 1959, Hearings, Part 2, 85th Congress, 2nd sess., 1958, pp. 449–466.Google Scholar
  81. 57.
    Brown, The challenge.Google Scholar
  82. 58.
    W. E. Ripper, Effect of pesticides on balance of arthropod populations, Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1 (1956): 403–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 59.
    J. W. Folsom’s study in 1925–1926 of induced outbreaks of cotton aphids by calcium arsenate is one of the first examples [Calcium arsenate as a cause of aphid infestation, J. Econ. Entomol. 20 (1927): 840–843].Google Scholar
  84. 59a.
    Studies in the 1930s on citrus and apples indicated that those crops, too, could suffer from induced pest outbreaks [see, for example, W. L. Thompson, Cultural practices and their influence on citrus pests, J. Econ. Entomol. 32 (1939): 782–789Google Scholar
  85. 59b.
    A. M. Boyce, The citrus red mite Paratetranychus citri McG. in California and its control,J. Econ. Entomol. 29 (1936): 125–130Google Scholar
  86. 59c.
    H. M. Steiner, Effects of cultural practices on natural enemies of the white apple le-afhopper,J. Econ. Entomol. 31 (1938): 232–240].Google Scholar
  87. 60.
    One sign of the relative lack of interest in the subject before the 1930s can be inferred from L. O. Howard’s failure to cover it in his paper in 1926, The parasite element of natural control of injurious insects and its control by man, J. Econ. Entomol. 19 (1926): 271–282.Google Scholar
  88. 61.
    C. P. Clausen and S. E. Flanders, Harry Scott Smith, 1883–1957, J. Econ. Entomol. 51 (1958): 266–267.Google Scholar
  89. 62.
    Paul DeBach, personal interview, Mar. 22–23, 1977; Carl B. Huffaker, personal interview, Mar. 17–18, 1977.Google Scholar
  90. 63.
    C. P. Clausen, Insect parasitism and biological control, Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 29 (1936): 201–223.Google Scholar
  91. 63a.
    Harvey L. Sweetman of Massachusetts State College prepared a similar but briefer statement for his work, The Biological Control of Insects (Ithaca: Comstock Pub. Co., 1936), 278–280.Google Scholar
  92. 64.
    Paul DeBach, personal interview, Mar. 22–23, 1977.Google Scholar
  93. 65.
    Richard L. Doutt, “The historical development of biological control,” in Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds, Paul DeBach, ed., (New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp., 1964), pp. 31–38.Google Scholar
  94. 66.
    Harry S. Smith and Paul DeBach, The measurement of the effect of entomophagous insects on population densities of their hosts, J. Econ. Entomol. 35 (1942): 845–847.Google Scholar
  95. 67.
    Paul DeBach, An insecticidal check method for measuring the efficacy of entomophagous insects,J. Econ. Entomol. 39 (1946): 695–697.Google Scholar
  96. 68.
  97. 69.
  98. 70.
    Paul DeBach, Predators, DDT, and citrus red mite populations, J. Econ. Entomol. 40 (1947): 598.Google Scholar
  99. 71.
    Paul DeBach, The necessity for an ecological approach to pest control on citrus in California,J. Econ. Entomol. 44 (1951): 443–447.Google Scholar
  100. 72.
  101. 73.
    Robert van den Bosch, The malencholy addition of ol’ king cotton, Nat. Hist. 80 (No. 10, 1971): 86–91.Google Scholar
  102. 74.
    NAS, Cotton Pest Control pp. 57–62; J. R. Brazzel and D. E. Shipp, The status of boll weevil resistance to chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides in Texas, J. Econ. Entomol. 55 (1962): 941–944.Google Scholar
  103. 75.
    James R. Brazzel, L. D. Newsom, John S. Roussel, Charles Lincoln, F. J. Williams, and Gordon Barnes, Bollworm and tobacco budworm as cotton pests in Louisiana and Arkansas, La. Tech. Bull. No. 482, Dec. 1953, 47 pp.Google Scholar
  104. 76.
    Texas A & M Univ. Ext. Ser. and USDA, 1952 Cotton Insect Control Guide: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (College Station: Texas A & M Univ., 1952), pamphlet.Google Scholar
  105. 77.
    . 1967 was the first year Texas A & M dropped all recommendations for chlorinated hydrocarbons for control of boll weevils. See Texas A & M Agric. Ext. Ser., South Texas guide for controlling cotton insects (College Station: Texas A & M University), leaflet L-561, issues for 1964, 1966, 1967 (hereafter cited as Texas A & M, South Texas guide). Google Scholar
  106. 78.
    George L. Gallaher, Agricultural poisons, Tex. State J. Med. 61 (1965): 336–339.Google Scholar
  107. 79.
    G. L. Gallaher, Recent experiences with parathion poisoning, Paper presented at Texas Medical Assn. annual meeting, Dallas, May, 1967, 8 pp., xerox copy in possession of author.Google Scholar
  108. 80.
    G. A. Reich, G. L. Gallaher, J. S. Wiseman, Characteristics of pesticide poisoning in south Texas, Tex. Med. 64 (No. 9, 1968): 56–58.Google Scholar
  109. 81.
    Donald A. Smith and J. S. Wiseman, Pesticide poisoning, Tex. Med. 67 (No. 2, 1971): 56–59.Google Scholar
  110. 82.
    Perry L. Adkisson, personal interview, May 30–31, 1978; J. R. Brazzel, Resistance to DDT in Heliothis virescens, J. Econ. Entomol. 56 (1963): 571–574; J. R. Brazzel, DDT resistance in Heliothis zea, J. Econ. Entomol. 57 (1964): 455–457.Google Scholar
  111. 83.
    NAS, Cotton Insect Control., p 60; Perry L. Adkisson, personal interview, May 30–31, 1978; Texas A & M, South Texas guide, Leaflet No. L-561, issues for 1967 through 1971.Google Scholar
  112. 84.
    Billy C. Duck, Food crops attract Mexican farmers away from cotton, Cotton Int. 38 (1971): 88–89 (hereafter cited as Duck, Food Crops).Google Scholar
  113. 85.
    H. Reiter Webb, Cotton acreage in Latin America jumps by 5%, Cotton Int. 40 (1973): 201–202, 210 (hereafter cited as Webb, Cotton acreage).Google Scholar
  114. 86.
    Perry L. Adkisson, personal interview, May 30–31, 1978.Google Scholar
  115. 87.
    Webb, Cotton acreage.Google Scholar
  116. 88.
    Hasso von Eickstedt, Mexico ups production techniques, Cotton Int. 36 (1969): 108, 110–111.Google Scholar
  117. 89.
    Duck, Food crops.Google Scholar
  118. 90.
    Dale G. Bottrell and Perry L. Adkisson, Cotton insect pest management, Annu. Rev. Entomol. 22 (1977): 451–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 91.
    World Population Estimates (Washington, D.C.: The Environmental Fund, 1979), pamphlet.Google Scholar
  120. 92.
    Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and John P. Holdren, Ecoscience (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1977), pp. 222–227.Google Scholar
  121. 93.
    Ibid., pp. 290–291.Google Scholar
  122. 94.
    H. H. Cramer, Plant Protection and World Crop Production (Leverkusen, Federal Republic of Germany: Farbenfabriken Bayer AG, 1967), p. 483.Google Scholar
  123. 94a.
    See also Ray F. Smith and Donald J. Calvert, “Insect pest losses and the dimensions of the world food problem,” in World Food, Pest Losses, and the Environment, David Pimentel, ed. (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1978), pp. 17–38.Google Scholar
  124. 95.
    The most complete study on the relationship between nutrition and economics is Alan Berg’s The Nutrition Factor (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Inst., 1973), 290 pp. See especially pp. 40–49.Google Scholar
  125. 96.
    Norman E. Borlaug, “Mankind and civilization at another crossroad,” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Nov. 8, 1971, c 71/LIM/4, 73 pp.Google Scholar
  126. 97.
    Quoted in David Pimentel, J. Krummel, D. Gallahan, J. Hough, A. Merrill, I. Schriner, P. Vittum, F. Kozioł, E. Back, D. Yen, and S. Fiance, Benefits and costs of pesticide use in U.S. food production, BioScience 28 (1978): 772, 778–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 98.
    Berg, The Nutrition Factor, pp. 40–42.Google Scholar
  128. 99.
    David Pimentai, P. A. Oltenacu, M. C. Nesheim, J. Krummel, M. S. Allen, and S. Chick, The potential for grass-fed livestock: resource constraints, Science 207 (Feb. 22, 1980): 843–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 100.
    John H. Perkins and David Pimentai, “Society and pest control,” in Pest Control: Cultural and Environmental Aspects, David Pimentel and John H, Perkins, eds. (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1980), p. 10.Google Scholar
  130. 101.
    See Richard J. Barnet and Ronald F. Mueller, Global Reach (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), 508 pp.Google Scholar
  131. 101a.
    Frances Moore Lappé and Joseph Collins, Food First (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977), 466 pp.Google Scholar
  132. 102.
    Anonymous, A look at world pesticide markets, Farm Chemicals, Sept., 1979, p. 61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • John H. Perkins
    • 1
  1. 1.The Evergreen State CollegeOlympiaUSA

Personalised recommendations