Within the combat between rodents and people, environmentalists select the rats

Imagine the scene in 14th-century Europe, when the continent was suffering from the bubonic plague, if a group of aristocrats had sided with the rats. What looks like a blueprint for a Monty Python sketch, or a sketch about SNL in the days when it was risky, isn’t far removed from the world we see today.

Environmental activists have campaigned for a ban on rat poison for years, and the Environmental Protection Agency has followed suit by banning rodenticides in pellet form, for example. However, when activists target product examples that deserve closer scrutiny, their blind spots are revealed. The Pesticide Action Network writes in a blog post: “The fact is: rodenticides are not needed. Predators like owls, hawks and other birds of prey do a great job of controlling rodents.”

While hawks and other country birds of prey can solve a rat problem in the country, they don’t show up to capture rodents in Times Square. Europe has learned this lesson the hard way since the European Union restricted the use of rat poison. Some EU members, like the Netherlands, have gone further by banning virtually all rat poison from 2023, paving the way for a significant infestation.

The knowledge and advice center for animal pests warns in large media of new plagues of rats. Its director told a public radio station, “Unfortunately, people won’t realize it until the rats and mice are running down the street.”

“In the lanternfly war, some are taking the side of the bug,” proclaimed the New York Times in a headline last month. The Chinese insect, which has made its way to the United States and infested fields since 2014, is now at risk of hundreds of millions in agricultural damage, according to the Department of Agriculture.

However, the article also gives a voice to those who believe that protecting the insect should be a priority, rather than preventing farms and forests from being decimated. Student Catherine Bonner, 22, says the bugs “didn’t mean to be invasive, they’re just living their own life” and “I’d be disappointed if I suddenly started somewhere I shouldn’t exist and everyone started killing me for it.” .” The New York Times adds that Bonner shares her feelings about lantern flies “only with close friends” (and a reporter from a national newspaper for her story).

Environmentalists and lanternfly enthusiasts fail to appreciate the importance of the agricultural sector. One would think that the past two years have shown how supply chain disruptions and food price inflation are affecting all consumers equally, struggling for families to make ends meet. Playing with the thin tissue that holds our food system together is irresponsible and ignorant; It’s a luxury perspective that few in the western world can afford.

On the scale of Roman decadent similarities, it’s hard to tell where siding with rats and insects fits. This phenomenon underscores a fundamental problem of the environmental movement: it does not put people’s interests and well-being first. The essence of their ideals lies in placing the life of insects or plants above that of humans. If the two interests cannot be reconciled immediately, environmentalists will vote against the interests of consumers.

It would be hard for our ancestors to believe that anyone would have to say this, but between rodents and humans, don’t choose the rodents.

Bill Wirtz is a senior policy analyst at the Consumer Choice Center, focusing on emerging technology, agriculture, commerce and lifestyle regulations. He recently published “No Copy-Paste: What not to Emulate from Europe’s Agriculture Regulation”.