Toxic Relationships: Two Sides of the American Relationship with Chemicals

With the development of chemical warfare, World War I ushered in a new age of synthetic chemicals for both the United States and the world. Led by growing companies like Dow Chemical, DuPont, Monsanto, and Hooker Chemical, the industry maintained close ties to the military, justifying an atmosphere of secrecy and protection of its products. Yet these chemicals were placed into widespread use—in plastics, clothing, and notably, pesticides. Worse, production of these chemicals left nasty by-products, which companies disposed of in often rather cavalier ways in the absence of government regulation. Despite knowledge of both health and environmental hazards inherent in these chemicals, Americans adopted and continued to use them. Two books—Michelle Mart’s Pesticides, A Love Story and Richard Newman’s Love Canal—examine the story of America’s relationship with and reactions to chemicals over the twentieth century.

Mart’s Pesticides, A Love Story unfolds around the engaging supposition that Americans’ interactions with pesticides can best be understood within the context of a relationship. As Mart notes, “like love, the attachment to pesticides was not necessarily rational” (p. 6). Focusing on “dominant themes and attitudes reflected in a sampling of mainstream press” (p. 8), Mart sees the story of pesticides as one of “remarkable continuity . . . [as] attitudes toward pesticide use remained relatively stable from the 1940s to the present day” (p. 2). Her story, as well, highlights specific events as possible turning points that failed to materialize.

Mart begins with the early years of pesticide use after World War II, when journalists almost uniformly stressed pesticides as a necessary element of agricultural progress and the wonders of modern technology. Pesticides provided Americans a way to dominate and control nature, whether through increasing crop production or grooming an immaculate suburban lawn. Through the 1950s, small groups recognized problems with pesticides, namely that they produced resistance in many insects and inflicted harm on both wildlife and humans. Mart then traces the contentious relationship of the pro-pesticide USDA and the emergence of more cautionary voices.

Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), generally understood as a pivotal turning point in the environmental movement and attitudes about pesticides, produced incremental changes rather than revolutionary ones. In fact, as Mart notes, overall use of pesticides actually increased after the release of the book. Carson herself, in efforts to seem less radical, publically emphasized that she did not want to eliminate all pesticide use. In addition, in the wake of the book’s release, the attention given solely to DDT as a problem led Americans to see that particular pesticide as an “abuse” rather than as representative of all pesticides. Other chemicals, by comparison, seemed “safe.” Through the 1950s and early 1960s, then, despite moderate alterations, “the status quo remained entrenched” (p. 82): the press continued to present pesticides as necessary and beneficial.

Pesticide use and policy formed an integral component of Cold War goals. In an effort to stave off the expansion of communism, the United States sought to assist developing nations with crop production (a program known as the “Green Revolution”), which reinforced attitudes about the beneficial nature of pesticides. The U.S. military also used pesticides and herbicides liberally during the Vietnam War, inflicting great harm on both land and people there. These Cold War policies and resulting crises again failed to generate significant change in attitude in the press. The Bhopal, India, disaster (part of the “Green Revolution”) involved a large toxic gas release at a Union Carbide pesticide-producing plant. Rather than focusing on the dangers of pesticide production and use after Bhopal, many of the arguments centered around the ineptitude of the Indian government and their culpability in failing to maintain safety standards. Even the outcry over the use of Agent Orange...