Exporting Pesticides to Developing Countries
As cited in the debate "Should We Export Pesticides to Developing Nations?", there is discussion on the Pro (Kenneth Goodpaster and Laura Nash) and Con (Jefferson Reynolds) side of the many effects pesticides pose to developing nations. On the Pro side there is the argument that insects and rodents eat up to 50 percent of all crops that are desperately needed by developing countries fast growing populations, and also the effects of pesticides to help control the disease borne insects that take many thousand lives every year. On the Con side, is arguments about Unites States corporations selling pesticides abroad that have been outlawed in the US due to ill effect against humans and the environment, and the lack of knowledge and government control that other nations have about these dangerous chemicals.
On the Pro side of the debate I feel that the authors have done a good job presenting their arguments in a way that will make the reader believe that the damage caused by pesticides is less relevant than the damage caused by the lack of food in those countries.
The author also states in his argument that without the use of pesticides the cost of farm products would increase by 50 percent and that 25 percent more of your income would be spent on food. I feel that is a presumption by the author and have found no evidence in my research to prove that. I would agree that with the loss of crops due to insects and rodents the cost of farm products would have to go up, but I think the percentages were a little high. The author does this by using many statistics and quoting many reliable resources. I do agree with the fact that the use of pesticides...