Paper short abstract:

This paper examines how scientific arguments are used to justify three competing approaches towards farming: “traditional” pesticide-based, organic, and “natural,” and how the scientific arguments are intertwined with moral and political-economic factors in farmers’ decisions on which method to use.

Paper long abstract:

In southern Taiwan, there are three competing approaches towards farming: "traditional" pesticide-based farming, organic farming, and "natural farming." The vast majority of farmers use pesticides, but everyone knows and often discusses the alternative approaches, and some use organic methods for their own family food garden. Each approach is based on a different view of humans' role in nature, and has different ideas about sustainability. Each also is based on different agronomic and medical understandings. The three approaches are linked to broader political-economic concerns, such as the viability of small-scale farming and the need to produce higher quality products that can be exported. They are also linked to religious identities, with some pious Buddhists refusing to use pesticides. And they are also linked to issues of ethnic identity and protecting the "treasure island" of Taiwan. In the background of all three approaches are risk and uncertainty: not using pesticides leaves farmers more exposed to dangers from pests, but pesticides—even those deemed safe by the increasingly stringent government regulations—still have uncertainty in their long-term effects and from exposure to misuse. This paper examines how scientific arguments are used to justify the three approaches towards farming, and how the scientific arguments are intertwined with moral and political-economic factors in farmers' decisions on which method to use.