Fifty years ago this week, The New Yorker began publishing Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. A series of three articles — excerpts from the book that would be published that September — appeared on June 16, 23, and 30, 1962 under the banner of “A Reporter at Large.” Carson’s account of environmental peril resulting from the overabundant use of petrochemical-based pesticides unfolded between cartoons and genteel ads for airlines, tasteful upscale merchandise, hotels, and restaurants. It’s impossible for anyone who was not then an adult to imagine what it would have been like to read these pieces in 1962, a time when such chemicals were generally regarded as a modern miracle for home gardeners and industrial agriculture alike. “We thought these things were safe,” said my mother, who read Silent Spring as it rolled out in The New Yorker.
Photo by Flicr user Incognita Nom de Plume
Reading Silent Spring today, it is disquieting to realize how much was already known in 1962 about the environmental health impacts of petrochemicals. Even more shocking is to recognize how little our regulatory response to these chemicals’ effects has changed, despite the past five decades’ great advances in scientific understanding.
Silent Spring is best known for its alarming account of DDT’s decimation of birdlife across the United States. The book is widely credited with sparking the public concern that lead to the chemical’s ban in the US ten years later. “Over increasingly large areas of the United States, spring now comes unheralded by the return of birds, and the early mornings, once filled with the beauty of bird song, are strangely silent,” Carson wrote, describing the toll pesticide use had taken on American birds, including the robin and bald eagle. Thanks to changes in practice, brought about in part by Silent Spring, these birds are still with us. Without Carson’s warnings, the bald eagle (whose numbers had plummeted to about 400 breeding pairs in the continental US by 1963) might well have disappeared from the lower 48 states, along with brown pelicans and peregrine falcons.
But the story doesn’t end there. Carson also described the accumulation of synthetic chemicals in people — including newborns — and how these chemicals interact with the innermost workings of living cells. “For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception until death,” Carson wrote. “These chemicals are now stored in the bodies of the vast majority of human beings, regardless of age. They occur in the mother’s milk, and probably in the tissues of the unborn child.” Carson made that prescient guess more than 40 years before an Environmental Working Group study found 287 industrial chemicals (including some of the pesticides detailed by Carson) in newborns’ umbilical cord blood, and decades before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began conducting regular biomonitoring studies that now find such chemicals in the majority of Americans tested.
Now, in 2012, almost every day brings a new report detailing discoveries of the health hazards associated with synthetic chemicals. Exposure to some of these substances has been linked to what are now increasingly widespread chronic health problems, among them diabetes, obesity, and reproductive and neurological disorders. We’ve learned that some of these effects can be prompted by exceptionally low levels of exposure that occur before birth and that the biochemical alterations they prompt can be so profound that a single exposure can affect several generations. That synthetic chemicals are found routinely in human blood samples and throughout our food and water supply has become a commonplace.
We also know that chemicals such as aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, and DDT — all pesticides whose impacts Carson chronicled — can build up in fat tissue and impair reproductive development and neurological function. We know that timing of a chemical exposure is critical to its effects on health; that children are uniquely vulnerable to such exposures; and that low doses may have significant impacts. These findings are often referred to as recent additions to our understanding of toxicity. And while the details of our knowledge have expanded immensely, Carson described these effects as well: “While the quantities so received by human infants would normally be small, they are not unimportant because children are more susceptible to poisoning than adults. This situation also means that today the average individual almost certainly starts life with the first deposit of the growing load of chemicals his body will be required to carry thenceforth.” Fifty years later our chemicals management policies are struggling to accommodate this reality.
“There are vast gaps in our knowledge,” wrote Carson, acknowledging that the science of synthetic chemicals’ effects on the human body was still emerging. Yet she also warned that a lack of information could not be taken as proof of safety. “However, there is every indication of long storage in the human body, where deposits may lie dormant like a slumbering volcano,” she wrote. “There has been no such parallel situation in medical history. No one yet knows what the ultimate consequences may be.”
Carson wrote all of this in 1962 — a time so different technologically and socially that it now almost seems a universe away. John F. Kennedy was president. The Cuban Missile Crisis was looming. The escalation of US military personnel in Vietnam had begun, growing from about 700 to more than 11,000 in the course of the year. In 1962, James Watson and Francis Crick were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work describing the double-helix structure of DNA. It was a year before Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream Speech” and three years before passage of the Voting Rights Act. Chubby Checker and Elvis Presley topped the Billboard Charts, with the Beach Boys and Peter, Paul and Mary bringing up the rear. In Vietnam, Operation Ranch Hand (originally called Operation Hades) was underway, conducting aerial spraying of defoliants — largely the dioxin-laden herbicide known as Agent Orange — across the countryside. The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act did not yet exist, nor did the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. There was no such thing a Superfund site. Industrial plants were not required to account for their releases of toxic pollutants. There was no federal law to protect communities from hazardous waste or to protect Americans’ right to know the chemicals to which they might be exposed. US law did regulate how pesticides were labeled, but it did not yet regulate their use. And imperfect as it has been, there was not yet a Toxic Substances Control Act to regulate chemicals in commerce. Silent Spring and the outcry it prompted – among the public and lawmakers — helped give rise to the modern American environmental movement and led to passage of our landmark pollution prevention laws.
“It is not my contention that chemical insecticides must never be used,” Carson wrote. “I do contend that we have put poisonous and biologically potent chemicals indiscriminately into the hands of persons largely or wholly ignorant of their potentials for harm. I contend furthermore that we have allowed these chemicals to be used with little or no advance investigation of their effect on soil, water, wildlife, and man himself. Future generations are unlikely to condone our lack of prudent concern for the integrity of the natural world that supports all life.”
Today we have smart-phone apps to help us decipher consumer products’ chemical ingredients. Scores of laws have been passed to restrict use of the most harmful chemicals. But in many ways we’re still grappling with the problems posed by the overall lack of information about chemicals that Carson decried in Silent Spring.
The focus of current public concern may have shifted from the impacts of large-scale applications of industrial-strength pesticides to those of synthetic chemicals in everyday consumer products, but the hazards posed by the chemicals to which Carson devoted her attention have not disappeared. To that generation of petrochemicals we have added thousands of new chemicals including those at the nano-scale that have behaviors that may not be predictable. We continue to allow the commercial use of chemicals without full knowledge of their effect on soil, water, wildlife or human health. Chemical manufacturers argue that their products are thoroughly tested and safe for intended uses, but there are enormous gaps in health and safety-testing and vast quantities of chemical information — including about chemicals destined for food contact, cosmetics, and personal care products — are publicly inaccessible due to legally protected confidential business information provisions. And the global supply chain is now so complex that consumer product manufacturers may not know the precise chemical contents of their merchandise. We’ve also institutionalized a system that regulates chemicals one at a time, and allows for the substitution of one hazardous substance with another. This leaves us without a policy framework to push whole categories of similarly toxic chemicals off the market or to support a real shift to safer chemical design.
Much like the chemicals she described in Silent Spring, the chemical industry’s arguments against Carson and its latter day critics persist. Writing in Chemical & Engineering News in October 1962, National Academy of Sciences member William Darby said Silent Spring would appeal largely to “readers who are as uncritical as the author, or to those who find the flavor of her product to their taste. Those consumers will include the organic gardeners, the antiflouride leaguers, the worshipers of ‘natural foods,’…pseudo-scientists and faddists.” Given “her scientific qualifications in contrast to those of our distinguished scientific leaders and statesmen, this book should be ignored,” Darby wrote. He dismissed Carson’s understanding of toxicity, saying her analysis ignored safety levels set by pesticide manufacturers. Darby also argued that because she failed to produce any real evidence of human injury resulting from exposure to pesticide residues, her arguments lacked merit. “Any harm that is caused by the use of pesticides is greatly overcompensated by the good they do,” the National Agriculture Chemicals Association commented shortly after Silent Spring’s publication. These are the same arguments that segments of the US chemical industry continue to make in defense of their products. Their echoes are heard on Capitol Hill and in product-defense firm press releases. “While taking the most cautious and precautionary approach to making these determinations may seem like the right thing to do, this method may also do more harm than good,” said the Chairman of a Congressional hearing on the National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens earlier this year.
Forty years after its publication, many of the chemicals Carson detailed in Silent Spring were targeted for global phase-outs by the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants. Yet arguments continue to rage about the efficacy of DDT. And while reams of peer-reviewed scientific studies support what Carson described, the blogosphere is rife with her detractors. Industry lobbying to prevent regulatory restrictions on products long known to be toxic to human health has not abated and many scientists argue that our control of harmful chemical exposures remains far from adequate.
Fifty years after Silent Spring, spring has not been silenced, but signs of severe and subtle disturbance are everywhere. Scientists are now watching natural systems and cellular feedback loops that have evolved over millennia begin to falter or go off course in response to chemical wrenches we’ve introduced into the global environment. The litany of potential environmental health hazards stemming from our use of fossil fuels and petrochemicals seems endless. As a society we often seem to respond, not by leaping into action, but by hitting the “snooze” button. Yet important changes are afoot. The demand for food free from petrochemicals, and for materials and products that are safe for the environment and human health, has grown far beyond the realm of “faddists.” A 2011 industry study found that 78 percent of US families surveyed are buying organic food, which has become one of the fastest growing segments in US agriculture. Annual sales of leading non-toxic cleaning products have grown by double-digits.
While science always needs to know more, and the practical challenges of creating and marketing chemically-safe products and revamping our current chemicals management policies are enormous, we have the information and expertise we need to launch a new generation of chemical products without perpetuating their predecessors’ problems. “The road we have long been traveling is deceptively easy, a smooth superhighway on which we progress with great speed but at its end lies disaster. The other fork of the road — ‘the one less traveled by’ — offers our last, our only chance to reach a destination that assures the preservation of our earth,” wrote Carson in the final chapter of final chapter of Silent Spring.
Whether we fully choose that “other” path remains to be seen. That we have such a choice at all, we have Rachel Carson to thank.
Carson’s photograph and an image of a page from her book were removed because of copyright issues on August 16, 2012
We are standing at a pivotal moment in history, one in which education and advocacy around the climate emergency, public health, racial injustice, and economic inequity is imperative. At Earth Island Journal, we have doubled down on our commitment to uplifting stories that often go unheard, to centering the voices of frontline communities, and to always speak truth to power. We are nonprofit publication. We don’t have a paywall because our mission is to inform, educate and inspire action. Which is why we rely on readers like you for support. If you believe in the work we do, please consider making a tax-deductible year-end donation to our Green Journalism Fund.Donate