Introduction:
The issue that I am going to address is about
pesticide poisoning. The current legislation proposed to address this issue is
bill H.R. 872 called the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act
Who is affected by the issue?
·
Everyone is affected by this issue. Pesticides
can affect the way plants grow and can poison animals that are eating the
plants as well. If pesticides are used too much it can eliminate food sources
that animals eat off of. By harming the animals this can harm us as well. When
pesticides are not used properly they can get into the water systems and end up
contaminating our water. Those who are effect most by the use of pesticides are
the farmers that use them on their crops because they come in direct contact
with the chemicals.
·
T The people that lose most if the bill is passed
are those being affected by the chemicals that they are either inhaling through
“pesticide drift” or consuming in their water.
·
The people who gain most if the bill is passed
are the companies and the farmers that are using these pesticides on their
crop. The pesticides help them to yield a higher crop which is why they would
want this bill to pass so that they can continue the use of them.
What are the consequences?
·
T Their families have just as high a risk of
getting this same issues
·
As for the rest of society, they can get some of
these problems when exposed. With increased exposure comes increased in
severity of disease/disorder.
What is the economic impact of the issue?
·
The economic impacts are the cost of the
pesticides used on the crops, the cost to spray the pesticides and also the
cost of cleaning up the drainage from the pesticides as well. To easily reduce these
costs all we would need to do is reduce the amount of pesticides that are used.
Those who bear the cost are the farmers and companies that are using the
pesticides. We as tax payers bear some of this cost because we pay the
government to clean the water.
·
The economic benefit of the continued use of
pesticides is that they help to yield more crops. This benefits everyone because
it means that there is more food for the farmers/companies to sell and there is
also more food for us to buy and consume.
What is the social impact of the issue?
·
The social cost of this issue is if it is passed
then pesticide use will continue with only slightly more regulated standards.
People’s health will still be affected by the use of pesticides even when they
are regulated.
·
The
social benefit of the continued but regulated use of pesticides is the
protection from pests and other organisms some which could be carrying disease.
The use of pesticides will keep problems like this at bay.
What are the barriers?
·
The barriers to this issue are that there is a
demand for the use of pesticides on crops. It’s hard to enforce strict
regulation on something that is in high use and demand. The demand for these
chemicals to be used is what is keeping them around. There are safer
alternatives but usually the alternative costs more money or take more time and
people are all about saving money.
·
To overcome these issues we need to find safer
alternatives that won’t cost people time or money. Another thing that needs to
be done is to make everyone more aware of the damage they could do to their body
by exposing themselves too much to pesticides.
What are the resources?
·
To
address this issue, they will need to have water records from areas that
pesticides have been discharged. They will also need records for the amount of
pesticides used and which type of pesticide is being used.
·
The companies should be keeping tracking of how
much and what pesticides they are using on their crops. They should be required
to have it recorded. As for water records, you should be able to get that
information from any public water building in your local area.
What is the history of this issue?
·
Pesticides have come around from scientist
experimenting with chemicals on crops to see what works best for eliminating
bugs. The 1950’s was deemed the “pesticide era” due to the invention of DDT and
the dramatic increase in crop yield. It wasn’t until around 1959 that serious
concerns about the use of DDT and human safety was brought up which then led to
86 countries banning the use of it. This was one of the first major issues
found with pesticides.
·
Past efforts made have been to require that
pesticides be regulated by the FDA and EPA. They test for “tolerances” and
maximum residue levels. What they don’t test is exposure to high doses of
pesticides.
·
These companies are now being criticized for their
inadequate monitoring of pesticide levels. They are now coming up with more
alternatives to using pesticides that try to avoid using chemicals unless
absolutely necessary.
Allies and Opponents?
·
Those who would support this issue would be all
the large companies that are using pesticides. Some of these companies include
large companies like Monsanto. Anyone who uses large quantities of pesticides
because this bill won’t require them to have a permit when using registered
pesticides.
·
Those who would oppose this bill would be anyone
living near a navigable water source because pesticides can still get into
their water. Also people who are trying to grow their crops naturally and get
some effects of pesticide being sprayed near them. Anyone who is for growing
naturally and organic would be opposed to this bill because it is still allowing
pesticides to be used.
·
This bill has gone through the senate and the
house to be looked over. To get both parties to settle on an agreement
somewhere in the middle would be slightly difficult though. They would need to
be more strict with their use of pesticides so that it is not affecting those
around them. In order for both parties to win those who are for the use of
pesticides need to cut back on their use and find better ways of disposal. Those
who are opposed will need to give a little and compromise with the use and
better disposal of pesticides.
Your Recommendation
·
I vote No for this bill. This is bill is
basically allowing the discharge of pesticides as long as they are approved of
by federal standards. I believe that instead of being more lax about how we use
pesticides we need to do the opposite and be more restrictive about it. Instead
of pushing to use more we should be pushing to use less.
Sources:
http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/JPR/JPR_01.htm
