The use of synthetic pesticides — chemical compounds designed to control insects, weeds, and fungi that damage crops and reduce yields — continues to generate political and scientific debate, as seen in the recent discussions on the possible ban of glyphosate at the EU level. In her research, Corinna Unger, Professor of Global and Colonial History at the EUI Department of History, examines how similar questions were addressed in the mid-20th century. She does so in the context of the project “Chemical Crossroads: Agrarian Transitions, Pesticide Controversies and International Governance, 1940s-1970s,” funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation and carried out in collaboration with Amalia Ribi Forclaz, Professor at the Graduate Institute in Geneva, and a team of researchers.
Corinna Unger and her colleagues study how organisations such as the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the early European Communities weighed scientific evidence, economic priorities, and political interests when dealing with pesticide use.
We spoke with Corinna about her research, and how a historical perspective contributes to understanding current debates.
The “Chemical Crossroads” project covers a wide range of actors and archives. When it was first designed, what research gaps were you and your collaborators hoping to address?
There were two main gaps we wanted to fill: For one, most existing research on the use of pesticides in agriculture is based on national case studies. As important as this work is, it does not address the fact that the use of synthetic pesticides was a global phenomenon from the start, and that a variety of actors who don’t fit neatly into nation-state categories were involved in the relevant debates and negotiations. Second, we considered it important to extend the established timeline. Much of the existing research argues that it was only in the early and mid-1960s that the use of synthetic pesticides became a contentious issue in national and international circles. Yet our research shows that debates about the risks associated with the use of synthetic pesticides go back at least to the late 1940s. Hence, we wanted to identify those voices that existed before environmental degradation became a widespread public concern.
Your work shows that pesticides were introduced with enormous optimism after the Second World War. What were policymakers and scientists hoping these chemicals would deliver, and what kinds of concerns or uncertainties did they set aside at the time?
Those in favour of the use of synthetic pesticides argued that they offered a relatively cheap, efficient, and fast solution to the problem of agricultural yields being depleted by pests. This, in turn, meant that food production would become more stable and less labour-intensive – goals agricultural scientists and politicians had pursued for a long time, given the serious challenges of hunger and lack of nutrition. Scientists realised early that using synthetic pesticides entailed health risks for those handling them, and that residues made their way into the human food chain as well as into the natural environment. But the interest in increasing yields was bigger than these concerns, and the responsibility for safe conduct was placed on those handling the pesticides, rather than on those producing and selling them.
Within this broader story, one strand of the project examines the use of pesticides in forestry. How were their environmental effects in this sector discussed or understood by experts and officials at the time?
Synthetic pesticides started to be used in civilian forestry in the 1940s. They served to protect timber from pests, thus contributing to the profitability of forest products, and they helped to reduce the amount of manual (often dangerous) labour required to keep brush growth under control. Since mainstream forestry focused on forests as sites of timber production, there was little concern with the environmental and social side effects of spraying synthetic pesticides. The fact that forests constitute complex eco-systems that have ecological meaning far beyond their immediate locations was marginalised in the interest of higher production rates. Those experts who warned that what we call biodiversity today was gravely affected by the use of synthetic pesticides in forests did not receive much attention or recognition until the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Your research also traces the use of pesticides in colonial and post-colonial contexts, which introduces yet another layer. Could you explain how these applications were framed differently, or evaluated by different standards, compared with their use in Europe?
Many of the European colonies and dominions abroad served as production sites for crops and raw materials on which European economies depended to a large degree. Hence, there was great interest among colonial administrators to increase yields and improve the quality of ‘exotic’ products, especially on plantations, which, as monocultures, were highly susceptible to various pests. Colonial societies were not consulted whether to have their land and forests sprayed with synthetic pesticides. European racist biases certainly played a role in dismissing or ignoring the potential health and environmental risks of pesticide use. Yet European racism was not an isolated factor, nor the only factor, in the equation. When the former colonies became independent, many of their new governments opted for a continuation of the intensive agricultural approach initiated by European colonial powers. They relied heavily on the use of synthetic pesticides and other chemical inputs, with very little concern for the livelihoods of peasants and agricultural workers. Elitist perspectives existed far beyond the caesura of decolonisation.
International organisations appear in your research as key decision-making arenas. How did they navigate early scientific warnings about toxicity, and what influenced whether these warnings were acted on or downplayed?
International organisations served as meeting points for experts from across the globe and allowed them to exchange, compare, and discuss scientific findings related to synthetic pesticides. The amount of relevant knowledge grew rapidly in the postwar decades, and the organisations set up working groups to coordinate the process of knowledge production and evaluation. They also served as standard-setters. Based on the information collected, they developed codices and manuals that became international standards. None of this happened in a vacuum. The political agendas of member states, ideological conflicts like the Cold War, and economic and trade interests influenced the ways in which allegedly objective knowledge about pesticides was dealt with. In many cases, experts actively downplayed or explained away the risks associated with toxicity. In other cases international organisations served as outlets for critical knowledge that could not be made public otherwise.
If we fast-forward to today: When you follow current debates on agriculture and environmental regulation, do you see echoes of the mid-20th century? And do you think international organisations have meaningfully learned from the earlier debates you studied?
There are many similarities between historical and contemporary discussions about intensive agriculture and its ecological implications. Today’s arguments about food security, population growth, import dependence, and technological fixes are very close to previous iterations, as are arguments for and against more a thorough regulation of synthetic pesticides. What is different today from, say, the 1950s, is that there is much more empirical knowledge about the ecological and health effects of synthetic pesticides. International organisations have embraced many of the relevant findings and adapted their positions – yet most of them don’t have the power to enforce regulations. At a time when multilateral agreements are being undermined and international organisations starved, it becomes increasingly difficult to imagine a global move toward a more restrictive use of synthetic pesticides.
Corinna Unger is Professor at the EUI Department of History. Her research focuses on the history of development; on environmental history in international perspective; on the history of agriculture and rurality; and on the history of European science policy. Her recent publications include the co-authored article Progress versus precaution: international organizations and the use of pesticides, 1940s to 1970s, as well as the co-edited volume Pesticide regulation past and present: scales, actors, and agendas.
Photo via shutterstock.com