Later this month, the Kauai County Council will consider Bill 2491, which would dramatically alter regulation of agricultural activities on the island.

Supporters argue that operations on seed farm research centers pose unacceptable risks. But which of these risks are real and which are imagined? It’s been half a century since the publication of Rachel Carson’s seminal book "Silent Spring." Many things have changed since then, and this bill is written as if none of it ever happened.

Central to the bill are concerns about certain pesticides designated as "restricted use." Translating sales records kept by the state Department of Agriculture into active ingredients, there are about 13.5 tons of these products purchased on Kauai each year. Who uses these products? Why? And what are the risks?

According to transparent public records, about 14 percent of these products are used to control weeds in a crop that is not related to the research centers. Another 9 percent are not even used outdoors, but rather to keep pests from infesting stored grain.

Of the remaining products used in Kauai seed production, most are used on corn. Proponents of the bill claim that because these products are often used for genetically engineered crops, their use is unusually high. That’s not correct.

When you consider these products are applied to two crops a year (which is why seed corn is grown here), the volume of restricted-use active ingredient used on Kauai works out to about 0.95 pounds per acre per season. Many U.S. corn-growing states use 50 percent more than that on their acreage. Some use twice as much. What’s more, that 0.95 pounds works out to about 0.00002 pounds per square foot.

As for the products themselves, many are widely used in crop production throughout the United States. In 2011, about 2.8 million pounds of these products were applied to a wide variety of crops in California, my own home state, based on mandatory state use reporting.

It turns out that the pesticides in question are not particularly toxic to animals. For perspective, it is useful to compare them with the relative toxicity of familiar substances. The caffeine many of us enjoy in various beverages is actually more toxic, gram for gram, than 98 percent of these pesticides. The ibuprofen we might take for a headache is more toxic than 70 percent of these pesticides. Obviously, we consume these familiar chemicals at levels far too low to be dangerous, but the point is that these pesticides are not in some extraordinary category of toxicity.

So why are they classified as "restricted use?" Mostly to ensure they are used by trained professionals who keep them out of water, protecting aquatic species. These are highly manageable risks, which is why regulators charged with the protection of both human health and the environment allow these products to be widely used throughout the U.S.

One of the most significant changes since "Silent Spring" was the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, more than 40 years ago. The truly dangerous pesticides have long since been banned. Billions of dollars have been spent developing new products posing less risk, and their use today is extremely well regulated.

Publicly available information demonstrates that there is nothing unusual about pesticide use by seed farmers on Kauai. There is no justification for a county-level government to impose another layer of potentially harmful restrictions on activities that are already well regulated.

Consider the unintended consequences. The buffer zones and other restrictions this bill requires may apply not just to seed farmers, but also to coffee and even organic growers (who use pesticides as well).

Bill 2491 is written as if there had been no positive legacy for "Silent Spring." That is simply not true.

The Kauai community and government should reject this bill.