This image depicts the teenage son of one of my research participants, spraying his father Peter’s field to minimize the effects of a Fall Army Worm infestation. Peter had learnt about pesticides through a local NGO supporting farmers that he was part of. Yet he remained skeptical: ‘They were only telling us the advantages of using the chemicals so that we get good production. But they were not telling us anything concerning the detrimental part of it.’
Peter shared his deliberations about the use of pesticides: ‘Now that we are using chemicals, for how long are we going to stay healthy? How long are we going to stay without, before we get sick? Because in most cases we get sick because our cells are being interfered with and this we know always come from three things. From the water we drink, from the food we eat, and from the air we breathe in. So when we spray these chemicals they hang into the air and we breathe them in, that is dangerous to our life. But the crops are always important, because if we get them is when we can get something to eat. And that is the main thing we are trying to do, to get the food. Because if we don’t have food we die.’
His statement echoes the equation between food security and pesticide use that is part of a dominant discourse through official channels. But it also hints at the real dilemmas that small-scale farmers face, and where a pest infestation in their crops may have severe economic consequences. Finally, the questions he raises make me think of competing temporalities, of the uncertain ‘how long’ of good health, versus the immediate necessity of food.
This image depicts the teenage son of one of my research participants, spraying his father Peter’s field to minimize the effects of a Fall Army Worm infestation. Peter had learnt about pesticides through a local NGO supporting farmers that he was part of. Yet he remained skeptical: ‘They were only telling us the advantages of using the chemicals so that we get good production. But they were not telling us anything concerning the detrimental part of it.’
Peter shared his deliberations about the use of pesticides: ‘Now that we are using chemicals, for how long are we going to stay healthy? How long are we going to stay without, before we get sick? Because in most cases we get sick because our cells are being interfered with and this we know always come from three things. From the water we drink, from the food we eat, and from the air we breathe in. So when we spray these chemicals they hang into the air and we breathe them in, that is dangerous to our life. But the crops are always important, because if we get them is when we can get something to eat. And that is the main thing we are trying to do, to get the food. Because if we don’t have food we die.’
His statement echoes the equation between food security and pesticide use that is part of a dominant discourse through official channels. But it also hints at the real dilemmas that small-scale farmers face, and where a pest infestation in their crops may have severe economic consequences. Finally, the questions he raises make me think of competing temporalities, of the uncertain ‘how long’ of good health, versus the immediate necessity of food.