Protecting Pollinators, Protecting Farmers

Written By Nissa Coit

Vermont’s HB 706, the Pollinator Protection Act, passed with overwhelming support in both the chambers of the state legislature. It is also widely popular among Vermonters – 83% of those surveyed expressed support for the bil. And yet, last week Governor Phil Scott used his veto power to protect synthetic pesticides. He claims he’s trying to "protect" farmers by refusing to protect pollinators. But continued dependence on chemical pesticides, like neonicotinoids, that are extremely harmful to pollinators harms farmers, too.

Dependence on harmful chemical pesticides in the first place results from overreliance on agro-industrial farming practices such as monocropping, and use of genetically modified plant varieties (altered either through transgenic technologies or simply selective breeding). Many plants have been bred for commercially valuable traits such as extremely large fruits, fast maturation, or higher sugar content. When plants focus on these capacities, they have fewer resources available to muster strong immunity and defenses. Often, even their nutrient density and quality as food sources also diminishes.

When humans plant massive acreages of homogenous plants with poor defenses – and especially when they do so in nutritionally depleted soils – the plants are far more susceptible to diseases and pest outbreaks. Addressing this susceptibility necessitates more intensive human intervention. When farming at large scales, maximizing efficiency in these protective interventions is key – and so farmers typically opt for chemical protection in the form of synthetic pesticides. Unfortunately, these chemicals are harmful to those that eat the produce they are applied to, those that apply them, and the critters that live in the ecosystems in and around areas they are applied. They – and the system of agriculture that makes them necessary in the first place – degrade the land that the farmers rely on for an income, making them vulnerable to unexpected disruptions, and reducing long-term viability. Not to mention the increased vulnerability of crops and costs associated with constantly inventing solutions to the frequency that insects develop pesticide resistance. To be clear, we don’t blame farmers, in Vermont or elsewhere, for this. So many of them have done precisely what the markets, agricultural extension advisors, and agribusiness told them was best. But now that we know better, it is time to do better. 

Continued use of harmful synthetic pesticides such as neonicotinoids harms everyone - farmers, community members, waterways, pollinators, the soil. It creates an unstable system that will only become more reliant on inputs, more expensive for farmers, and ultimately, more susceptible to catastrophic and costly events such as development of resistance, natural disasters, changes in the market, and competition from large extractive and predatory companies with outsized financial resources. 

The ban of neonicotinoids would go a long way toward preventing and reducing the myriad harms they cause. HB 706 was also written in such a way to prevent unexpected consequences. It provides for plenty of nuance and strong exemption policies available to farmers who might experience undue hardship.

There is still a chance to ban neonicotinoids in Vermont this year. The Vermont legislature will convene for a veto session on June 17.  Encourage your Senators and Representatives to protect pollinators, farmers, and public health by overriding Governor Scott’s senseless veto. Our friends at NOFA-VT made it very easy to contact your state representatives to express your support for HB 706. Use their form or make a call or email on your own within the next two weeks. 

Despite all this, bans on neonicotinoids alone are not enough to protect pollinators or farmers. As is often the case when single changes are made to a breaking system such as our agricapitalist food system, one bad chemical class may just be replaced with a worse one. For example, when DDT was banned due to the unintended effects on wild bird populations, many farmers and land managers shifted to using organophosphates, which are even more toxic to humans. To combat this, neonicitinoids became popular because their mechanism of action targeted insect nervous systems more than those of mammals. At this point, we know that protecting our insect populations are just as important as protecting mammals, especially at a time when insect populations are declining rapidly. We need to embrace solutions that support ecosystem vitality and a vibrant multi-species community of life. 

Ample evidence demonstrates transitioning to more diverse, holistic, agroecological farming practices can actually increase yields after a transition period. It also creates more fertile soils, healthy ecosystems for other species like pollinators, and better nutrition for the humans that eat the resulting harvests.  This is excellent news for farmers, because they can generate more revenue with fewer input costs, in the form of expensive fertilizer and pesticide chemicals, seeds, fuel and labor costs, and importantly, contracted (often ineffectual) pollination services. 

That said, it is still important to create support for transitions away from synthetic industrial tools when farmers still do have to work within the larger industrial and economic system. Removing tools farmers rely on in a system they have to make a living within, without providing realistic, reliable resources for transitioning to alternatives can be ruinous. A  lack of foresight in bridging between the current reality we must exist within, and the futures we want to see, can have dire consequences such as insolvency for farmers, or at worst, famines for entire populations. In Sri Lanka, synthetic chemical fertilizers were banned outright, with no plans or contingencies for transition. Without chemical fertilizers, plants will not grow in already dead and depleted soils. Healthy soils must be rebuilt, which does not happen overnight. But Vermont’s ban on neonics is very distinguishable from the Sri Lankan fertilizer prohibition. First, a ban on neonics does not affect the many other classes of synthetic pesticides that remain available to Vermont farmers. And more appealingly, there are also immediate, integrated, and ecological ways to effectively control pests that do not involve chemicals. Learning to use these methods does, however, require education, labor, or motivation. EcoGather can help with the education and inspiration parts: we offer a robust, affordable self-paced course on Ecological Pest Management & Beneficial Insects – and we will support Vermont farmers who contact us with deeply discounted access to this class if they are concerned about the ban or just want to increase their skills!

If Governor Scott really wants to protect farmers, he would work with the legislature to phase out neonics over a very short period while also providing financial support, education, and and incentives to help farmers who had been relying upon them to transition away from high-input, extractive and degrading agri-industrial systems, towards lower energy, lower input, and more sustainable systems that maintain resilience and self and community based sufficiency.

*** 

To learn more… 

  • Explore the benefits and methods of diverse, resilient, nature-based farming practices in our Agroecology course

  • Grasp the science of pollination and the present state of industrial beekeeping (and the relationship growers have with both) in our Art and Science of Apiculture course

Nissa Coit
Previous

The Dance of Her Humanity
Next

Story Activities