Rethinking 'Invasive Species': Environmentalism Gone Awry?
The ever expanding war on 'invasive species' is giving 'green cover' to the widespread use of inadequately tested pesticides that threaten the health of the very soil and water that sustain all life.
It is time to reexamine the underlying assumptions and motivations for this campaign and explore creative rather than destructive responses to changes in our environment.
The war on "invasive species" has been founded more on ideology than science...examining the question is much needed and long overdue.
---Michael Pollan
Author of The Botany of Desire and The Omnivore's Dilemma
Knight Professor of Science and Environmental Journalism at UC Berkeley.
Background
Historically, wherever man migrated, he brought plants prized for food, fiber, medicine, and ornament. With world exploration and trade, the exchange of flora and fauna became ever wider, and after 1492, the ecosystems of the continents were transformed.
Importation was encouraged by presidents and agencies such as the US Office of Plant Introduction. In fact, the US Department of Agriculture planted the now vilified kudzu for erosion control and other purposes. Today, 98% of our crops and many plants we think of as American as apple pie are actually from somewhere else-including the apples in that pie.
At the start of the 20th century, however, laws were passed to ‘protect crops and livestock from the wilds of Nature.’ By mid-century, in a climate of war and fear of foreign attack, the theory of invasion biology branded alien species as invaders. War was officially declared on invasive species in 1999 with Executive Order 13112 which authorized billion dollar funds and a complex network of agencies to respond to ‘alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.’
Rethinking War
Recently, some ecologists have started to raise objections to this approach. Many of the species initially thought to be inherently harmful have been found to be environmental service providers, or useful medicines or food sources. Further, evolutionary biologists have begun to warn against shortsightedness, noting that ecosystems are constantly changing; species and communities naturally come and go.
Perhaps most significantly, scientists warn about the use of dangerous compounds as a solution to the perceived problems of invasive species. Timothy Scott, author of Invasive Plant Medicine writes: “even if the poisons are carefully applied (and they aren’t most of the time) they eventually contaminate the water, soil and air and enter the food chain, affecting microorganisms up through to our dinner places.”
Furthermore, these costly eradication efforts often fail, affect unintended species, and actually create superweeds that then require more and stronger herbicides leading to a perpetual cycle of pollution.
The good news is that many plants identified as invasive are actually beneficial. For example, edible garlic mustard actually contains more vitamin C than orange juice, more vitamin A than spinach, and shares the medicinal benefits of both garlic and mustard. Japanese knotweed, long planted along riverbanks for stability and shade, is valued by beekeepers as an important nectar source when little else is flowering. This plant has been used for centuries as a gentle laxative, is an excellent source of the potent antioxidant resveratrol, and it is now used in treating Lyme disease. And yet these plants are vilified and eradicated. This exemplifies Tim Scott’s caution that in attacking “invasives,” we may be “destroying potent medicinal remedies.”
To read more go to:
In Jeopardy : The Future of Organic, Biodynamic, Transitional Agriculture
Rethinking 'Invasive Species': Environmentalism Gone Awry?
2012 Conference
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 05:36PM
Reader Comments