Farm Press Blog

Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ 50 years later

RSS

Fifty years ago, Rachel Carson published her now famous book “Silent Spring,” a widely acclaimed diatribe on pesticides credited with launching the modern environmental movement.

Today, Carson’s message about pesticide use still polarizes people and politics.

Fifty years ago, Rachel Carson published her now famous book “Silent Spring,” a widely acclaimed diatribe on pesticides credited with launching the modern environmental movement.

In an article in the Huffington Post, U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., describes how the book was received at the time. “Rachel Carson was attacked by the chemical industry using a playbook that the tobacco industry first developed: discredit the messenger, foster doubt and denial about the science and call for additional research.”

As we’ve learned since, environmental radicalism employs its own playbook, if you will: link an adverse effect with a chemical or technology, dig up data that supports your conclusion and back it up with a media blitz before anybody has a chance to debunk your study.

Ronald Bailey, writing about the 50 years since “Silent Spring,” in Reason.com, acknowledges that Carson’s book was right on some counts, including the development of insect resistance to pesticides and the effect of DDT on some raptor populations.

But to make the book a best seller, Carson needed something much more sinister. So she hinted strongly at potential links between pesticides and cancer, and warned humanity, “The full maturing of whatever seeds of malignancy have been sown by these chemicals is yet to come.”

Fortunately, it didn’t. Rather, the passage of time revealed that the link between cancer and chemicals was insignificant compared to factors such as smoking, drinking too much and eating too much food.

Bailey contends that Carson’s book was not really about cancer and chemicals anyway. He wrote, “In “Silent Spring,” Carson crafted a passionate denunciation of modern technology that drives environmentalist ideology today. At its heart is this belief: Nature is beneficent, stable and even a source of moral good; humanity is arrogant, heedless, and often the source of moral evil. Rachel Carson, more than any other person, is responsible for the politicized science that afflicts our public policy debates today.”

A recent study, the Yale Cultural Cognition Project, provides some interesting clues on how this debate unfolds.

It concludes that people on the political left “tend to be morally suspicious of commerce and industry, to which they attribute social inequity. They therefore find it congenial to believe those forms of behavior are dangerous and worthy of restriction.”

Those on the right are concerned about “collective interference with the decisions of individuals” and “tend to be skeptical of environmental risks. Such people intuitively perceive that widespread acceptance of such risks would license restrictions on commerce and industry.”

Fifty years later, Carson’s message about pesticide use still polarizes people and politics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discuss this Blog Entry 2

Dan (not verified)
on Oct 23, 2012

I think you have curtailed your analysis at a discrete if not completely satisfying place. It seems there is also room for mention of political issues which have been favored by women since they gained full federal suffrage in 1920 (!). It is easy in our short lives not to appreciate that biological science, women's political influence, and organic chemistry are all in their infancies and expanding.
By not framing this issue as due to the influence of zealous women activists (remember Prohibition?) you probably avoided trouble at home. :-) In our traditional roles for men and women, the woman's perspective has become harder to marginalize.

Judy White (not verified)
on Oct 29, 2012

So, who wants to eat vegetables that have been dusted with DDT? Remember Love Canal? Agent Orange? Thalidomide? There is good reason to be circumspect of synthetic chemicals that are sold and used with little regard for their impact on human life as well as life on earth. This I know to be true: the zeal for profits has unleashed a lot of misery in this world--whether it was for insecticide, medicine, or selling sub-prime mortgages. I'll always trust the scientist over the person making money off of a product or using that product to increase productivity. I don't expect big Agri-business to be concerned about the environment beyond its own profit-driven self-interests.

I grew up on a farm and own a farm. I consider myself an enviromentalist, too. And if women's opinions are being taken into account more often--well it's about time, gentlemen.

Please or Register to post comments.

What's Farm Press Blog?

The Farm Press Daily Blog

Connect With Us

Blog Archive
Continuing Education
Potassium nitrate has a positive effect in controlling plant pests and diseases when applied...
This online CE course details sound mechanical irrigation design and management practices to...