Last year, a federal judge ruled that five California air basins violated the Clean Air Act when they failed to reduce smog-forming volatile organic compound “VOC” emissions from agricultural pesticides. In Ventura County, instead of attempting to comply with federal air pollution requirements over the last 10 years, more land was dedicated to conventional growing that relies on high concentrations of VOC-producing fumigants and heavy spraying schedules. The law was flagrantly disregarded.

This federal court ruling and the recent challenge by a Ventura grandmother and her neighbors to the use of toxic fumigants in their backyards are just two symptoms of a vulnerable agricultural system. Regulations and ag/urban conflicts will continue to plague conventional growers if they do not adopt more sustainable strategies. Reliance on ozone-producing pesticides violates the Clean Air Act; agrichemical runoff is now subject to the mandates of the Clean Water Act. Laws and regulations are not going away.

Communities and environmental groups, strengthened in number and educated about the trade-offs between high yields and high air and water pollution, will continue to ensure that these mandates are enforced.

Conventional growers claim they cannot afford to reduce chemical use. Just the opposite, however, is true. They cannot afford not to.

The toxic inputs they believe keep them profitable, in reality, render them vulnerable, inefficient and unsustainable. The external costs, regulatory struggles and ag/urban conflicts all stem from conventional agriculture’s dependence on polluting chemical inputs.

We need to stop substituting one harmful chemical with another and get on the path of sustainability.

The “success” of industrialized agriculture is an illusion. Pests develop immunities and encourage farmers to use larger, more deadly doses of pesticide. In 1948, U.S. farmers used 50 million pounds of pesticides a year and lost 7 percent of their crop to pests. Today, with a 20-fold increase in chemical use, total crop losses are 20 percent higher — more pesticides, greater expense, greater crop loss and increased harm to the environment and human health. The only real winners in this system of crop production are the agrochemical industries that sell the toxic chemicals.

Pesticides compromise our health. The scientific community has come together to declare that chemicals, including those used heavily in conventional agriculture, can cause cancer, neurological and reproductive problems, learning disabilities and myriad other adverse health consequences. Agricultural runoff carries these chemicals into groundwater reservoirs and surface streams and into birds and fish.

Low prices at the grocery store do not include the external costs forced onto society by conventional agriculture. Costs associated with water treatment, healthcare, regulatory compliance and damage to soil, air, wildlife and ecosystem resources are all borne by society at large.

A recent Iowa State University study quantified these costs and found that society pays between $10 billion to $16 billion a year for conventional agriculture.

We find ourselves faced with choices related to the undeniable connection between today’s actions and the future of our world. We are motivated to reverse global climate change.

We care about clean air and clean water. Consumer preferences for nontoxic and environmentally friendly practices have created lucrative markets for companies embracing cleaner technologies, energy and resource conservation — all components of what we want — a sustainable world.

How much longer will a more enlightened society be willing to put up with conventional farming when there is another way to grow food that respects natural resources, works with nature instead of against it, and leaves communities with cleaner air, cleaner water and healthier ecosystems? Sustainable farming is far superior to conventional methods when you consider all of the environmental and public health harms and benefits of each.

Because agriculture has such profound impacts on the environment and human health, it is a critical part of any movement toward sustainability.

The social, economic, environmental and regulatory realities will eventually compel agriculture to adopt a more sustainable, whole-systems approach that embraces ecologically based alternatives. Do we have the wisdom to implement this sooner rather than later, or do we further compromise environmental and human health?

Cheaper and safer pest- management methods have already been developed and adopted by many farmers without compromising food production. A successful model for transition includes more pressure on Extension services to promote and support sustainable practices and creating networks of farmers and scientists, agricultural organizations, public agencies, and communities to learn together about local conditions. This responsibility does not rest just with the agricultural community. We must turn to lower-risk methods of pest management in our gardens, parks, schools, cities and counties as well.

We can do this in Ventura County. We can set the standard for a sustainable system. Let’s enlist the courage, wisdom and visionary leadership it will take to make this change.

— Mary Haffner, of Ventura, is a lawyer, board member of Community and Children’s Advocates Against Pesticide Poisoning, and a Ventura Unified School District trustee. She introduced the idea of integrated pest management to VUSD and requested it stop the use of hazardous chemicals in the environment. In 2000, she united the community to protect elementary school children from pesticide drift across the street from Mound Elementary School. Her actions ultimately led to statewide legislation addressing the need for stricter controls of hazardous chemicals near schools.