Over the past centuries, the use of pesticides in agriculture has grown steadily. Undoubtedly, they have increased agricultural yields around the world. Yet, the topic of pesticides is a highly controversial issue with two distinct opposing viewpoints. One side asserts that pesticides are safe and necessary for effective production. The opposite position contends that pesticides are dangerous for consumers and should be immediately eliminated from use. Are Americans merely paranoid about the possibility of chemicals on their food? Or do residual pesticides really present a hidden danger at Americans’ dinner tables? Current research shows that the pesticides applied in the field do reach Americans’ dinner tables. Significant amounts of …show more content…
The alarming frequency of chemicals in American’s bodies is proof for the danger of pesticides. Even if produce does not violate pesticide residue limits, the chemicals are still accumulating in the bodies of Americans. Clearly, the fears of Americans about pesticides are not unfounded; there is a real problem, not mere …show more content…
Instead of the wanton mass spreading of chemicals, careful application would reduce the hazards of pesticides. Currently, 98% of insecticides and 95% of herbicides reach an unintended destination, not the target species (Stoytcheva, 2011). Instead of dropping chemicals from crop-dusters, applying these substances to a specific area (e.g. the base of the plant) could drastically reduce their harmful secondary effects. In addition, with each passing year, new research fine-tunes chemicals with specific biological targets in mind, limiting adverse collateral effects on the environment and other organisms—including humans. Then even when pesticides do not reach their ideal destination, their effects on their inadvertent landing place would be minimal. The best solution is not a dramatic reduction in the use of pesticides but rather better pesticides with improved application