Compare And Contrast Ruckleshaus Vs Monsanto

When comparing Thomas, Administrator, and U.S Environmental Protection Agency v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products to other cases, the most alike out of Ruckleshaus v. Monsanto and Wisconsin v. Mortier, would be Ruckleshaus v. Monsanto. The Supreme Court cases of Ruckleshaus v. Monsanto and Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products are similar because they are based around the provisions of FIFRA, as Wisconsin v. Mortier was based on pre-emption and who has more power within the law, Federal or State. When the Supreme Court was deciding Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products, it used much of the information on the FIFRA provisions that were ruled on in the Ruckleshaus v. Monsanto Supreme Court case. Many of the provisions helped Thomas reverse the decision of the lower court. The major difference was that in Ruckleshaus v.

There is always opposition to pesticides because of the harm that it can cause on the environment and the animals alike. Pesticides though have saved a lot of hard work for farmers over the past couple of decades because it does all the dirty work, for example, the killing of weeds and other pests. Pesticides have also saved a lot of money for farmers by preventing pests from damaging crops or taking the nutrients and water supply away from crops. (Whitford, 7) In the future we need to start to find less toxic ways to prevent pests from attacking the crops and vegetation. This would prevent a lot of the other costs associated with pesticides for example, health costs for farmers that are exposed to the toxic chemicals or the killing of the habitats in the surrounding areas. The situation could be changed by developing new farming techniques or better machinery that destroys the pests in a non-toxic way to humans. I don’t see to many changes though in the future to the current use of pesticides, it is a well-known and proven