32 THE AUDUBON BULLETIN 
of cancer from chemicals, it does not approach the danger in the threat of 
inheritable defects. 
The pesticide industry continues to grow. Yet only limited research 
has been done to compare the costs and benefits of pesticide use. Many of 
the advances attributed to pesticides are due to other improvements in 
agriculture, Graham reminds us. While the use of DDT is being restricted 
in this country, huge amounts are being exported to poorer countries who 
buy it because it is comparitively inexpensive. 
As Graham says, we still know little of the reaction of the body to 
combinations of all the chemicals it takes in. Research has shed light on 
what chemical pollution may mean if it goes unchecked. While DDT 
production is dropping, there is a rise in the production of other persistent 
pesticides to offset this. 
As a result of Rachel Carson’s book entomologists have become much 
more concerned with the effects of what they use. Yet, Graham says, too 
little research is being done on biological controls. 
“Silent Spring” touched off the great report on the use of pesticides 
in 1963 by the President’s Science Advisory Committee, which included the 
famous recommendation, “Elimination of the use of persistent toxic pesti- 
cides should be the goal,’ and another report of the committee in 1965 
entitled “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment.” This report stated 
that “The corporations’ convenience has been allowed to rule nation- 
al policy @ 
By 1965, many government officials were greatly bothered by the 
pesticide problem. There was a dawning realization by many that the 
destruction caused by pollution from chemicals is not economically feasible. 
For example, hazards of chemicals to beneficial insects began to cause 
great concern. Even pesticides considered less dangerous, because they are 
not persistent, have their drawbacks: for example, Sevin breaks down 
easily but kills bees so necessary for pollination. 
Natural controls are not automatically safe either. We should not 
unleash them as we did pesticides withcut knowing exactly what we 
are doing. 
Yes, “Silent Spring” roused the citizenry and the government. It con- 
tinues to be of influence because, as Graham says, the problems it points 
up are far from solved. He states, “If there has been a significant advance 
since the publication of ‘Silent Spring’ in this area of long range pesticide 
effects on human beings, it is the expansion of the realm of the unknown; 
our ignorance of the subject has broadened and deepened.” Stuart Udall’s 
resources program staff laid down a criterion that Graham believes con- 
tinues potent: ‘As a general principle, the case against a given product 
does not require evidence equal to that in favor of it. All that is required 
is sufficient evidence to establish reasonable doubt as to safety.” 
It must be remembered that, as our book under review says, Rachel 
Carson’s message “...was not the abolition of pesticides but the gradual 
withdrawal of persistent chemicals and the integration of the others in 
planned programs with biological and cultural controls.” 
The book ends with a summing up of gains, one of the greatest of 
which are the present awareness of the government and the public “of the 
interrelationship of all living things and the dependence of each on a 
healthy environment for survival. Further, it invested the Federal Govern- 
