Robbins and Sharp discuss some of the issues at play in the lawn chemical industry. Opening with the example of the first of many Canadian municipalities to ban cosmetic lawn chemicals and the uproar it caused with chemical manufacturers they wonder if it is really demand or supply which drives chemical application. They give a brief history of the North American lawn, pointing out how recent it is. Up until the middle of the 20th century weeds were permitted in lawns-especially edible greens. This changed after WWII, first with the increase of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers in agriculture. Once that market became saturated companies searched for new markets, finding one in American lawns and helping to create a suburban monoculture.
There is growing resistance to this because of the significant health and environmental effects, both by individual practices as well as on the municipal level. Non-profits, too, are joining the fight by encouraging the reform of grass laws and alternatives to traditional lawns. This resistance is not without push back, both by neighbors who want a certain neighborhood aesthetic, and of course by chemical companies themselves.
As well as bringing up how cultural practices are often newer and more manufactured than is often thought this article points out how influential chemical companies are. While agriculture and neighborhood lawns are different on the surface the authors show how related the two are. This is important in fully understanding the complexities of the agricultural industry and what drives decisions. It is important to understand that while they may talk of the benefits of synthetic chemicals, manufacturers are concerned first and foremost with profit.
- Robbins, Paul and Julie Sharp “The Lawn-Chemical Economy and Its Discontents” From Antipode, vol. 35, issue 5 (2003): 955-979