Pesticides and Value Questions

  • Robert L. ZimdahlEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Agriculture book series (BRIEFSAGRO)


Unexamined, rapid conclusions about anything can be serious errors of judgment, and actions based on them may lead to unanticipated, perhaps undesirable consequences. Pesticide technology has not lacked challenges to conclusions about its role and value. These have often been met by pleas for scientific objectivity and dismissal of challenges as emotionally laden and lacking in understanding of the necessity of high agricultural production, pesticide’s role in maintaining production, and the extensive safety evaluation mandated before a pesticide ever reaches the US market. While not without foundation, these pleas do not allow careful consideration of other arguments and points of view and their logical conclusions. I first encountered the problem of reasoning with opposing points of view in the late 1960s and early 1970s during the 2,4,5-T controversy. My thoughts were clarified as I struggled with the inevitable value questions (Zimdahl 1972). They are reproduced in a slightly modified form below.


Modern Agriculture Master Manipulator Rapid Conclusion Operative Paradigm Pesticide Industry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Keen S (1969) To a dancing God. Introduction. Harper and Row, NY, p 1Google Scholar
  2. Morison EE (1966) Men, machines, and modern times. The MIT Press, Cambridge, 235 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Zimdahl RL (1972) Pesticides—a value question. Bull Entomol Soc Am June:109–110Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Robert L. Zimdahl 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest ManagementColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations