The definitive start to the
environmental movement goes back to 1962 when Rachael Carson published Silent Spring. Prior
to the book being published, and to this day, experts in various disciplines
have pointed out the shortcomings of her writings. Faced with
compelling facts to the contrary people still blindly follow her writings. One of her unintended legacy’s is giving the environmental movement a
blueprint on how to effectively use misinformation and half-truths. People like
David Suzuki, Chief Theresa Spence, Al Gore and others are masters of
manipulation distorting facts on virtually every media campaign. Rachael Carson
taught them how to cherry pick data to prove a point and ignore any data to the contrary. It matters little if they
are right or wrong just that they are heard. Please take a moment to read the article below
and ThinkTwice next time you hear her name mentioned.
Paul Visentin
ThinkTwice group
Silent
spring at 50:Reflections on
an environmental classic
Fifty years after
the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring‚ the book’s legacy is mixed. It helped raise awareness about the costs of
mass spraying operations‚ but it also provided justification for campaigns against the use
of DDT in malaria control programs‚ which contributed to the deaths of millions in
Africa and Asia.
Despite blunders
in Silent
Spring‚ the book is often cited with reverence. An example is Discover magazine ranking
it one of the 25 greatest science books ever written‚ noting that “[h]er chilling
vision of a birdless
America is still haunting” (Discover 2006). This accolade for an advocacy book aimed at a
mass audience typifies how Silent Spring is treated. As Wallace Kaufman notes‚ except for Henry
David Thoreau‚ Carson has been
cited more than any other environmental writer (Meiners‚ Desrochers‚ and Morriss 2012‚ Ch. 2).
Carson’s earlier
publications on the oceans and marine life were fine works of nature writing
that helped build her reputation. In Silent Spring‚ she shifted from documenting nature’s beauty to
advocating positions linked to a darker tradition in American environmental
thinking: neo-Malthusian population control and anti-technology efforts. She
drew on her reputation as a nature writer to give these ideas a more acceptable
face. Canonizing Silent Spring helped build those darker themes into mainstream
environmentalism today. For those of us who believe‚ as did the late
Julian Simon‚ that humanity is the “ultimate resource” (Simon 1998)‚ that was a tragic
wrong turn.
Carson’s prose is
powerful‚
but
the substance of the book is not what one would expect from a leading “science” book. Silent Spring presented an
emotional argument against chemical pesticides. It left key data and issues out
of the picture. Her outrage was prompted in part by government spray programs
that blanketed cropland and forests with heavy doses of pesticides in efforts
to eradicate pests. Such programs often ran roughshod over landowners’ wishes. But it was
not only the overuse that agitated Carson. She was highly critical of chemical
pest control in general. She proposed mass introduction of alien species as a
means of “biological” control of pests‚ a problematic alternative.
Above all‚
Silent
Spring is a work of advocacy‚ weaving anecdotes and carefully selected bits
of science into a compelling brief against uses of chemicals that had already
saved millions of lives at the time Carson wrote.
This PERC Policy Series draws on a larger
work by a group of scholars assembled to examine Silent Spring in the context of
the time in which Carson was writing. As is appropriate for a work intended to influence
public policy‚ Silent Spring deserves critical analysis. The complete analysis will be
published in 2012 by the Cato Institute as Silent Spring at 50: The False Crises of RachelCarson (readers who would like more detailed documentation for the
abbreviated discussion here will find it in the book).
Historical Background
Today‚ there is a vague
perception that the 1950s were a time of reckless chemical usage. Although innovations
in chemistry were hailed—the inventor of DDT was awarded the Nobel Prize in
Medicine for discovering it‚ and U.S. servicemen in World War II praised it for preventing
insect-borne diseases—there were concerns about DDT from its earliest use. As
World War II drew to a close‚ Carson’s employer‚ the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)‚ worried that
organochlorides such as DDT damaged wildlife. The U.S. Department of
Agrigulture (USDA)‚ a larger and more powerful agency than the FWS‚ won the initial
skirmish‚
but
the claims and the clashes between agricultural interests and wildlife
advocates were present from the start. FWS gained an ally when the FDA entered
the debate as the agency sought authority to regulate residues in food.
Responding to
concerns about chemical exposure‚ the House of Representatives passed a resolution in 1950 calling for
an investigation into chemicals in food products. Rep. James J. Delaney of New
York was named as chair of the House Select Committee to investigate the “Use of Chemicals
in Food Products” (Meiners et al. 2012‚ Ch. 9). To be the committee’s chief counsel‚ Delaney chose
Vincent A. Kleinfeld‚ the FDA’s general counsel. Kleinfeld ran masterful hearings for the
Select Committee‚ carefully building a case for more authority. Although
agricultural interests were represented on the committee and were powerful in
Congress‚
Kleinfeld
outmaneuvered them by using USDA and agricultural witnesses’ testimony to paint
the USDA as a biased agency beholden to special interests. His questioning of
witnesses created the impression that the USDA was ignorant of the harms that
were being inflicted on the public by the use of toxic chemicals that tainted
food. The hearings attracted considerable attention‚ drawing major
media coverage as they were held around the country.
