Nützliche Schädlinge

Reviewed by: Nützliche Schädlinge: Angewandte Entomologie, Chemische Industrie, und Landwirtschaftspolitik in der Schweiz, 1874–1952 Jonathan Harwood (bio) Nützliche Schädlinge: Angewandte Entomologie, Chemische Industrie, und Landwirtschaftspolitik in der Schweiz, 1874–1952. By Lukas Straumann . Zurich: Chronos Verlag, 2005 Pp. 392. €32. Drawing on work in the social construction of technology, Lukas Straumann poses the question, How and why did chemical methods of pest control become well-established in Switzerland by about 1950? In answering, he focuses on the key interest groups involved (the state, industry, and public-sector research institutions), the effects of both world wars, and the specific [End Page 257] circumstances in Switzerland which favored pesticides over alternative approaches. State intervention was evident from the start. Having seen the devastation already wreaked on French vinyards by the phylloxera bug, Swiss federal authorities reacted quickly to the insect's arrival in 1874. Laws were passed to restrict the import of possibly infected grapes; subsidies were provided to the afflicted cantons; where spraying or other measures were thought to be effective, they were made compulsory; and scientific studies of the offending pests were commissioned. Not all entomologists were keen to take advantage of this opportunity. Officials of the Swiss Entomological Society dismissed practical problems as of lesser interest, declaring that the real value of the study of insects was its capacity to provide rational entertainment and religious instruction. Entomological research at higher education institutions remained rather weakly developed throughout the period, and the first sustained research programs on pest control emerged at two agricultural experiment stations that were established around 1890. With the introduction of compulsory spraying for some pests, the stations cooperated closely with the private sector. Indeed, one of the distinctive features of the Swiss stations compared to their American, Canadian, or French counterparts was the dearth of research on alternatives to chemical control. But it was after 1918 that a specialized Swiss pesticide industry took off. In contrast with the United States, where arsenic compounds had been in widespread use since the 1870s, Swiss entomologists were initially cautious about recommending them on grounds of toxicity. Nevertheless, Swiss production of arsenates increased after the war, despite continued health warnings from medical authorities and conservationists. The controversy came to a head at a high-level conference in the mid-1920s when a coalition of entomologists, agricultural interest groups, and the chemical industry—arguing on grounds of efficacy and cost—outnumbered the critics, leading to a marked expansion of arsenic's use. The outbreak of war in 1939 brought big changes to the industry. Faced with the threat to food security, the government enacted a program of agricultural modernization which sought to increase production through the use of intensive cultivation methods including pesticides. Until that time the big Swiss chemical firms—Sandoz, Geigy, and Ciba—had left the small domestic pesticides market to small firms, preferring to concentrate instead on dyestuffs manufacture and pharmaceuticals. Evidently reckoning that wartime modernization programs—in many countries—would substantially increase worldwide pesticide use, the big firms rapidly took steps to enter the market. At Geigy one chemist found that DDT was cheap, effective, and (apparently) safe. Geigy had a good war; the raw materials needed for DDT were easier to obtain than those for other insecticides, and both Germany and the United States were keen customers. At all three firms, investment in pesticide research and production and profits rose sharply. [End Page 258] By mid-century, however, chemical control was running into difficulties. Fly populations resistant to DDT had begun to spread, and health authorities were expressing concerns about the toxicity of organo-phosphorus compounds. The Agriculture Ministry's campaign to blanket-spray large forested areas ran into criticism from beekeepers whose bees were dying, from town authorities whose water supply was contaminated, and from entomologists who noted that the treatment killed as many useful insects as pests. Last, the alliance of the public and private sectors collapsed: experiment station biologists, criticizing the dominance of the chemical industry, began to argue for biological controls. In terms of coverage, this book has a great deal to say about business history, rather less about public-sector research, and very little about the

Art · Political science · Entomological Studies and Ecology · Insect behavior and control techniques · Plant and animal studies