Risks From Natural Versus Synthetic Insecticides

For centuries humans have used natural insecticides to combat insect pests that compete for our food and fiber or that affect public health. Some of these compounds were plant extracts or plant parts, others were mined from the earth. In the twentieth century synthetic insecticides have replaced natural ones as the standard means of controlling detrimental insects, ticks, and mites. Although early natural insecticides such as arsenicals and nicotine carried with them acknowledged risks, a populace that often faced hunger and vector-borne diseases was willing to tolerate a degree of risk to realize the benefits of the chemicals being used. Synthetic insecticides brought a new order of insect control, but also a new collage of risks. As people became more comfortable in the developed areas of the world, threats of starvation, arthropod-vectored diseases, or loss of clothing and shelter often became minor concerns. The quality of our food supply and the economics of production now govern the majority of pest and pesticide approaches, products, and methodologies. At the same time, new questions have arisen regarding environmental quality, especially contamination of water, air, and soil by a host of chemicals, some of which are pesticides ' or their degradation products. Our present society can afford to discuss long-term health implications of agents used to control insect pests. Many new and difficult questions have emerged about health and environmental nsks, giving rise to a distinct area of study called risk assessment. One of the most challenging questions