Can Chuck Grassley connect the dots?

Sen. Chuck Grassley stopped in Fairfield on July 24, on his 99-county tour, generously giving almost all his time to questions from his constituents.

Four questions were about the dangers of pesticides. Given that 63% if the entire land area of Iowa is devoted to corn and soybean production, and pesticides like glyphosate and others are applied to nearly all of that land, people expressed concern about how these chemicals are affecting the health of Iowans.

It is absolutely alarming that Iowa has the second-highest incidence of cancer in the nation, and has the fastest-growing rate of new cancers. And while the causes of cancer are complex, there is increasing focus on the likely link between the use of pesticides in our state (highest in the nation) and the prevalence of cancer. After a few questions on this subject were raised, one audience member tried to boil the issue down to its essence: “Can you and the government find ways to connect the dots between the widespread use of pesticides and the alarming cancer rate in Iowa”?

Grassley’s answer essentially described the existence of two separate silos in our government. Agencies like NIH are concerned with cancer, he explained, and the EPA is concerned with regulation of chemicals. “Cancer is cancer,” he said, “and chemicals are chemicals.” To much of the audience, this answer sounded like an admission that “No, we do not connect the dots.” He moved on to the next question. Like Gov. Kim Reynolds and the majority of Iowa legislators, Grassley seems to turn a blind eye toward what researchers are finding about the connection between pesticides and cancer rates, sidestepping the urgency of the crisis in favor of the interests of modern chemical farming and its lobbyists.

One of the most important roles of science, especially in matters affecting our health and safety, is precisely to connect the dots between phenomena. And one of the most important roles of government is to assist and support the process of finding answers that do in fact connect these dots. Separate government agencies that do not cooperate in a common quest to protect our well-being are failing us in the worst way.

Later in the Q&A session, ethanol and some of its drawbacks were discussed. In response, Grassley outlined the history of ethanol – that it was originally fostered only because of fears about our imported oil supplies. He acknowledged, however, that the oil supply is no longer a problem at all. But once again, he did not connect the dots; he did not discuss forward-looking ideas about how we should pursue a new energy program, starting now – especially given the increasing ravages of climate change, the fact that ethanol’s total carbon footprint exceeds that of gasoline, and the uncertain future of the ethanol industry as we move toward electric vehicles.

Our government and our nation are deeply divided about critical issues. That’s all the more reason for our leaders to go beyond the information silos, to find more comprehensive answers that bridge diverse areas of expertise – to ensure that we recognize the full shape of the challenges we face, and forge solutions that will protect us all. We cannot settle for the idea that this is the best our leaders can do. They can and they must do better and it is up to us to demand that they do.

Thom Krystofiak is a writer and software engineer living in Fairfield.