Rachel Carson's Silent Spring: Lessons on Pesticides and Environment

Introduction

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was published in 1962 — eight years before the birth of the Environmental Protection Agency and more than fifty years before the writing of this essay. At that time, there was little common knowledge about the sometimes terrible effects of chemicals on the environment, plants, animals, and humans. Carson's unflinching, educated examination and explanation of these effects helped create a dramatic cultural movement that is far more knowledgeable and responsible about the environment and the role of human beings within it.

Lessons from the Gypsy Moth and Fire Ant Campaigns

Carson places the chemical campaigns against the gypsy moth and fire ant in the context of a culture conditioned by chemical industry greed, power, and money; government officials' naïve acceptance of the chemical industry's claims, issuance of propaganda, misuse of power, and negligence; public ignorance and gullibility; and local activists' growing awareness and outspokenness.

The chemical industry was a multi-million dollar enterprise that gained considerable knowledge and newly developed chemicals during and after World War II. Intent on making as much money as possible and accepting no responsibility for protecting the environment, the chemical industry poured money into researching insecticides, including the development of large research grants at universities. With much deeper pockets than the governmental institutions that would otherwise fund studies, the chemical industry was handsomely paying the very scientists, entomologists, and biologists who were supposed to study insecticides and their effects. Consequently, major studies about insecticides tended to exaggerate their usefulness and downplay their harmful effects.

Meanwhile, despite government officials' duty to safeguard and warn the public about danger, agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued propaganda films and literature — sometimes with very little scientific support — for pet projects that were forced upon a gullible and ignorant public. Local activists, such as agricultural advisors, rare independent scientists, farmers, veterinarians, doctors, and hospitals, who either knew better in advance or began to notice the harmful effects of chemical campaigns, reported those effects and advocated for safer alternatives. All these businesses, individuals, and groups played roles in the gypsy moth and fire ant incidents.

The Gypsy Moth Spraying Program

Gypsy moths were accidentally introduced into America's environment in 1869 in Medford, Massachusetts, and then spread throughout the northeastern United States. From that time until the 1950s, the gypsy moth was considered a nuisance because its larvae attack oak tree foliage in the northeastern United States for a few weeks each spring. Though moderate local control of the gypsy moth population already existed in the 1950s, the chemical industry and government officials were determined to completely destroy the gypsy moth population through an irresponsible large-scale chemical campaign that ultimately failed and caused serious harm.

Using a host of relatively new chemicals, including DDT and Heptachlor, the U.S. Department of Agriculture decided to use airplanes to spray millions of acres with deadly insecticide. The Department conducted this campaign for years — from approximately 1954 to 1959 — though it had never sufficiently studied the effects of aerial insecticide spraying. Moreover, the Department paid spray planes per gallon of insecticide rather than per acre, which compelled pilots to spray as much insecticide as possible, sometimes drenching a piece of land several times, in order to maximize their pay without regard for the appropriate amount of insecticide per acre.

The results were severe: the chemicals contaminated milk and farm produce, killed numerous birds — including one swarm of migrating robins after another — killed fish and crabs, and harmed or killed pets and other animals. Local activists in the form of ordinary citizens, fishermen, farmers, and veterinarians reported these incidents and pushed for local, moderate control of the gypsy moth population through sex attractants, parasites, and natural predators. Furthermore, the chemical campaign failed to eliminate the gypsy moth from the northeastern United States. As a result, the public rightfully lost confidence in and goodwill toward the Department of Agriculture.

Conclusion

The presence of poisons in kitchens and gardens is particularly dangerous to women. Beyond the straightforward observation that women tend to occupy kitchens and gardens more than men do, there are biological reasons for their greater vulnerability. First, there is some evidence that women are more susceptible to poisons. Second, an overabundance of the female hormone estrogen in the blood has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals. Third, the liver plays a key role in inactivating estrogens in the blood. Fourth, poisons such as Chlordane, Dieldrin, and Aminotriazole — or combinations of poisons — damage the liver. Combining all these factors, a woman who is subjected to such poisons may suffer liver damage, which results in high levels of estrogen in the blood, which in turn causes cancer. The final compounding factors are that trace elements of these poisons persist for years, even relatively "harmless" poisons can combine to become lethal, and cancer can develop as long as fifteen, twenty, or thirty years after exposure.

Carson probably knew at least some of this information, for several reasons. First, she was a trained scientist who also happened to suffer from breast cancer and likely researched the topic as thoroughly as possible. In addition, she demonstrated her knowledge by specifically writing about the effects of these poisons, the ecology of the human body, and its permeable vulnerability. On the other hand, science has probably learned a great deal more about chemicals and the body over the fifty-plus years since Carson's death. Consequently, it seems fair to say that Carson knew some — but not all — of the special dangers posed to women by chemicals.

Silent Spring is considered by some to be the start of a revolution. When the book was published in 1962, attitudes about chemical companies, government officials, and environmental activists were very different from today's. At that time, an ignorant and gullible public was easily misled by the chemical industry and government officials, while regarding activists as worse nuisances than the gypsy moth and fire ant themselves. The harmful effects of that culture are illustrated by Carson's descriptions of the all-out chemical warfare waged against the gypsy moth and the fire ant in 1950s America. In fearlessly and carefully explaining those instances, and in revealing the pervasiveness and dangers of poison in everyday life, Carson produced a work that is still deemed powerful and revelatory more than half a century after its publication.