Supply reduction: alternative crop

This analysis has demonstrated that pesticide use in the world could be reduced by approximately 50% without any reduction in crop yields (in some cases increased yields) or the food supply. This effort would require applying pesticides only-when-necessary plus using various combinations of the nonchemical control alternatives currently available (34). Although food production costs might Increase slightly (0.5% to 1%), the added costs would be more than offset by the positive benefits to public health and the environment (15). 

However, I do want to discuss the viability of some of the supply reduction approaches because they clearly aren t working. First of all, the United States should stop crop eradication in developing countries. As was said in the previous chapter, crop eradication is an effort to disrupt the livelihood of poor people. It not only is ineflFective it alienates these farmers from the United States. It is difficult to believe that a Colombian farmer would resist growing an alternative crop if that farmer could make the same amount of money that is made growing coca. Therefore, this is an issue of global poverty and can only be solved by international efforts on that issue. 

Outside the U.b chlorinated insecticides have accounted for half of the insecticides used in crop protection (e.g. vegetables 46% rice, 57% other cereals, 85% cotton, 38% in 1966). Their major contribution is undeniable and whilst there has now been some reduction in public health uses, the crop protection uses in poorer countries seem likely to decline only slowly As the rest of the world slips into ever increasing dependence on North America for its grain supplies (48) we cannot lightly abandon any of the well proven means to maintain the food supply, particularly if the alternatives appear safer only because we know less about them ... 

---