Few will question the fact that Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring has had a tremendous effect on American environmentalism – in fact many credit her with the catalysis of the environmental movement. One source eloquently states that “Silent Spring played in the history of the environmental movement the same role that Uncle Tom’s Cabin played in the abolitionist movement,” and later testifies that the existence of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “may be said without question to be the extended shadow of Rachel Carson” (Lewis). Yet do people realize just how impressive her imprint on society was and how it continues to this day? Through a look at the impact of her book on the nation’s environmental policy and an investigation of public reaction to the book, this paper seeks to give the reader an idea of the magnitude of her contributions.
It would be absurd to say that Carson’s book was the sole factor that brought about the various laws pertaining to environmental protection in the decade following her book’s release, but with the explosion of new policies concerning the environment following the book’s entry into American affairs, its effect can’t be ignored. On the state level, over forty bills were introduced to limit pesticide use by the end of the same year in which Silent Spring was published (Graham 72). The federal government was slower to respond, but bit by bit over the decade following the book’s publication several landmark laws had been passed.
The most direct impact of Carson’s book was the movement towards a ban on DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane), a highly potent and widely abused chlorinated hydrocarbon that was considered a cure-all for battling the likes of gypsy moths (Carson 156), fire ants (161), elm bark beetles (105), and other pests. The use of this chemical was more lambasted than any other in Carson’s book, and, as will be discussed later, was defended more ardently than any other pesticide attacked by her work. This chemical is classified as an endocrine disruptor (Hosansky 59) and could lead to liver damage and cancer, temporary nervous system damage, and reduced reproductive success (“DDT”). Carson gives many accounts of the damage that this chemical caused to birds (Carson 103-127) and fish (129-152) in particular chapters of her book dedicated to these two types of animals. Not only did animals and possibly humans suffer from the over-use of DDT, but the chemical was beginning to lose its effect on the intended targets; insects were becoming resistant to DDT. By 1970, 150 species of insects had become resistant to DDT (Graham 15). In 1971, partially due, no doubt, to pressure from an anti-DDT movement that gained impetus after Carson’s book was published (Hosansky 59), the EPA began to enact policies that would move the country towards an end to use of DDT (59). In 1972 William D. Ruckelshaus, administrator of the EPA, declared a ban on DDT (59) after three years of government research brought him to the conclusion “that the continued massive use of DDT posed unacceptable risks to the environment and potential harm to human health,” (“DDT”). Carson’s blunt criticism of the unnecessary use of DDT had won a victory.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 was passed in 1970 (Hosansky 83):
The purposes of this act [were]: To declare a national policy which [would] encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality (NEPA of 1969). Because of this act’s revolutionary implications, Gaylord Nelson, a senator from Wisconsin considered NEPA to be “‘the most important piece of environmental legislation in our history’” (Lewis). The most important provision of this act was that it required Environmental Impact Statements to be presented to this Council on Environmental Quality for critical review whenever a federal agency planned a project that could have major implications for the environment (Lewis). Up until that point, it was deemed completely unnecessary that federal plans for insecticidal action be reviewed by any other authority (Carson). The fact that Carson directly pointed out this lack of federal regulation is good reason to suspect that the existence of this law can be at least partially attributed to her influence.
Eight years after the publication of Silent Spring a pre-existing piece of legislation, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), was amended. This amendment shifted control of enforcement to the newly formed EPA and tweaked the focus of the act “from the control of pesticides for reasonably safe use in agricultural production to control of pesticides for reduction of unreasonable risks to man and the environment,” (FIFRA). Two major instances of unreasonably drastic responses to pest “epidemics” were outlined in Silent Spring. The first was the way that the Midwest dealt with the Japanese beetle which “at the peak of its depredations never justified the nightmare excesses of some of these Midwestern programs” (Carson 99). Pellets and dustings of aldrin, a chlorinated hydrocarbon many times more lethal than DDT, were showered in heavy doses over many suburban areas in hopes of controlling this foreign “menace” despite the fact that renowned naturalist from Michigan, Walter P. Nickell, testified that the beetle had been present in minimal numbers according to his observations(Carson 87). The fire ant extermination efforts in the south were also overdone, in Carson’s opinion (162). While it does appear that she understates the nuisance that the ants caused, it seems clear that they weren’t exactly a serious threat to life, limb, or dollar. The government’s program ended up costing them $3.50 per acre in toxic, widespread insecticide use while it could have cost them $0.23 per acre by using a more direct chemical with greater efficiency than the aerial downpour of chemicals (172). Had these plots for extermination been scrutinized, they would likely have been deemed “unreasonable risks to man and the environment” and would never have happened. Who knows how many similarly unfruitful and unnecessary applications of poisons were prevented by the amendment of this act?
The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (an addition to the previously mentioned FIFRA) was made in 1972 (Federal Pesticide). This act placed strict regulations on the registration of pesticides and required that each be classified as general or restricted use chemicals. If the poison was considered for restricted use only, only certified persons were permitted to use it (Federal Pesticide). Such requirements would help keep the more dangerous pesticides out of the hands of the common consumer, something that Carson addresses (Carson 174).
The Clean Water Act of 1972 dealt with the issue of industrial discharge of chemicals into waterways (Summary of CWA). According to this decree it became unlawful for industrial or municipal facilities to empty pollutants into a navigable body of water without a permit (Summary of CWA). This law also set standards for acceptable pollutant levels in surface waters. In waterways exposed to high concentrations of insecticides, whether from accidental run-off from farmlands, aerial dustings, or any number of other sources, the fish mortality rate was truly alarming. In some coastal streams inadvertently treated with DDT, the salmon mortality rate reached nearly 100% (Carson 138). A tale of river contamination near Austin, TX, tells of a massive fish kill that was observed ranging over 200 miles of river from the source of the pollutants that were found in high concentrations in the carcasses of the fish (144-146).These stories are not by any means unique and isolated occurrences, although they are more drastic than many of the others. It was clear that something had to be done to prevent further pollution of the waterways that housed the fish and other aquatic wildlife that so many people valued for economic and recreational reasons. The Clean Water Act essayed to do that very thing and succeeded in putting an end to many of the horrors described in Silent Spring.
Judging solely by the fact that more than 500,000 hard-cover copies of Silent Spring were sold (Kort 37), it can be inferred that the book became popular and was widely read. It was an eye-opener to the public. While some of Carson’s strong statements such as “a few minutes’ research in any supermarket is enough to alarm the most stout-hearted customer” (Carson 174) or “when the public protests … it is fed little tranquilizing pills of half-truth” (13) caused some to panic, others turned these warnings into productive endeavors. She had intended to spur the common consumer into becoming more aware of what exactly was being sold to them in hopes that they would pressure the chemical companies to make changes, not in an effort to cause pandemonium. As was mentioned earlier, a public movement against the use of DDT was bolstered by Silent Spring (Hosansky 59), and the book was said to have “crystallized public anxiety about environmental degradation” (83). Most histories of the environmental movement give a tribute to the impact of Carson’s book on the development and rise in popularity of the movement. Schools have been named after her, stamps have been made commemorating her, and other honors have been bestowed upon her memory. Last year marked what would have been the woman’s 100th birthday, and celebrations both national and local were held in honor of her work (Larson).
However, not all remember Carson with fondness. Because of the attack against the wanton use of DDT in Silent Spring, most countries stopped using it as a tool against the spread of malaria. While Carson herself only advocated the reconsideration of the widespread use of DDT in the Americas, her followers often took the radical route of working towards a total ban of the chemical. Many critics therefore blame her for the deaths caused by malaria in third-world countries (primarily in sub-Saharan Africa). It is true that the chemical could have been – and could very well still be – a valuable weapon against malaria, but its effectiveness would have been quickly reduced had the trend of mass application been continued. As early as 1949, three years after successful control using DDT, mosquitoes from the race that serves as a vector for the malarial protozoan were to be seen in treated areas (Carson 269). This indicated that a few of the mosquitoes had a natural resistance to the chemical and were therefore able to reproduce and create additional resistant mosquitoes. By 1970, more than 150 pest species had become resistant to DDT (Graham 15). Based on this, it is logical to assume that if pesticides had been applied in such massive proportions as they were in the era of the publication of Silent Spring, DDT would no longer be effective against malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Carson’s adherents were probably too hasty in their efforts to wipe out the chemical before they considered its benefits, but a reduction in its use was necessary.
As a powerful writer and a respected scientist, Rachel Carson possessed the key skills needed to bring issues of chemical overdose to the attention of the public and the government. Evidence suggests that her book accomplished that very thing, whatever anyone may say about her over-zealous fans.
Works Cited
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press, 1962.
“DDT.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 15 January 2008. U.S. EPA.20 April 2008. <http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/ddt.htm>
“FIFRA Statutes, Regulations, and Enforcement”U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 31 October 2007. US EPA.20 April 2008. <http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/civil/fifra/fifraenfstatreq.html>
Graham, Frank. Since Silent Spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1970.
Hosansky, David. The Environment A to Z.Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 2001.
Kort, Carol. A to Z of American Women Writers. New York City, NY: Facts on File Inc., 2000.
Larson, Christina. “Party Smashers.” Washington Monthly. October 2007.MAS Ultra – School Edition. EBSCOhost.Finneytown HS Library, Cincinnati, OH. 20 April 2008
Lewis, Jack. “The Birth of EPA.” U.S Environmental Protection Agency. November 1985. U.S. EPA. 3 April 2008. <http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15c.htm>
“The National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, as amended”Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America.1 January 1970.
“Summary of Clean Water Act.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.6 March 2008. U.S. EPA. 20 April 2008.
Toth, Stephen J. “Federal Pesticide Laws and Regulations” March 1996.20 April 2008.
3 comments:
I read the first paragraph and thought, "Rachel Carson...I know that name...Silent Spring!" and then I said aloud, "Oh, wait, that is in the title."
I guess you had to be there in my mind to really appreciate it.
The really funny part, though, is that you are going to be graded harshly on all the formatting, whereas I have written a total of zero papers for the Academy where such things particularly mattered. Yes, it is a gravy life in the Academy.
Last, take my applause, especially for going through all that legislation. If AP Government taught me anything, it is that legislation is not good reading.
I only read one or two pieces of legislation, and I didn't read any of these in their entirety. I pretty much just took the EPA's word on what laws were influential and then found general summaries of them.
Post a Comment