MS+report+sample+introduction



__ Title __ Herbicides, Pesticides and Human Health: Why People are Concerned, and Developing Alternatives

__ Introduction __ // Darnell lives deep in the basement of a life sciences building at the University of California-Berkeley, in a plastic tub on a row of stainless steel shelves. He is an African clawed frog, // // Xenopus laevis ////, sometimes called the lab rat of amphibians. Like most of his species, he's hardy and long-lived, an adept swimmer, a poor crawler, and a voracious eater. He's a good breeder, too, having produced both children and grandchildren. There is, however, one unusual thing about Darnell. // // He's female. //

// Genetically, Darnell is male. But after being raised in water contaminated with the herbicide atrazine at a level of 2.5 parts per billion—slightly less than what's [|allowed in our drinking water] —he developed a female body, inside and out. He is also the mother of his children, having successfully mated with other males and spawned clutches of eggs. Recently he was moved to an atrazine-free tank and has turned lanky, losing the plump, pincushion look of a female frog. But last March, when UC-Berkeley integrative biology professor Hayes opened him up to take a look, Darnell's insides were still female. "He still has ovaries, but there's no eggs in them," Hayes told me the next day as we stood watching the frog, who swam over and inspected us soberly, then turned and flopped away. //

This story, taken from a 2012 article in //Mother Jones// about the work of scientist Tyrone Hayes (Slater 2012), illustrates why many people today have increasing concerns about the herbicides and pesticides used in agriculture, landscaping and for control of mosquitoes, cockroaches and other insects in homes and neighborhoods. This report examines many reasons for concern about herbicides and pesticides. It also describes innovative developments aimed at decreasing herbicide and pesticide use in the United States, and around the world. The report concludes with a scenario that suggests how decreased use of herbicides and pesticides could benefit human health, the environment and farmers.

Herbicide and pesticide use in the United States grew dramatically after World War II, building on developments in the chemical industry during the war. In the 1950s, pesticides were seen by many people as the way to win a war against nature, killing insect pests that ate crops and bit humans. The pesticide DDT was freely sprayed in neighborhoods and schools, for example, to kill mosquitoes. The chemical industry ran advertisements about “better living through chemistry.” Rachel Carson’s famous book //Silent Spring//, published in 1962, promoted a different perspective. Carson pointed out that pests are actually important to ecosystem health, and that chemicals that kill insects also kill birds and other animals, and likely harm humans. Carson’s book became a bestseller, and helped mobilize an environmental movement in the United States (Muir 2007).

In 1972, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established. Its mission included pesticides assessment and regulation. Few pesticides have actually been banned, however. DDT, which was banned in the United States in 1972, is an important exception (Moyers 2007). Many analysts point out that it is very difficult to establish direct causation between pesticides and harm to ecosystems, wildlife, or humans using conventional scientific approaches. Many analysts also point out that the chemical industry is a strong lobby against pesticide regulation. The chemical industry’s influence on pesticide assessment is thus a key concern and challenge, as is the complexity of the environmental sciences. The stakes are very high.

There are thus many stakeholders in the pesticide issue. Chemical companies who design, manufacture and sell pesticides are an important stakeholders, as are environmental scientists who work in universities, like Tyrone Hayes. Farmers who use (and are exposed in their work) to pesticides are important stakeholders, as are government policy makers. Many environmental groups – National Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, Greenpeace, and the Pesticide Action Network, for example – are also important stakeholders in the pesticide issue. Health care professionals are also stakeholders. The American Medical Association, for example, has recommended limitations on exposure, noting that “particular uncertainty exists regarding the long-term effects of low-dose pesticide exposures” (AMA 1997). The biggest stakeholder group is made up of all people, all of whom must eat, and so are affected by the way our food is grown and by the sustainability of the way we use our soil and water.

The remainder of this report is in three main sections, followed by a conclusion. In the first section, reasons for concern about pesticides are discussed. The second section is a case study of DDT, which describes when it was developed, how it was used, bans on its use in the United States and internationally, and the continuing controversy around use of DDT for mosquito control. The third section of the report describes innovative ways to reduce the risks pesticides. A final, concluding section describes recommended priority actions, and a possible future scenario that illustrates the many, interconnected benefits of reduced use of chemical pesticides.

References American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs (1997). [|Educational and Informational Strategies to Reduce Pesticide Risks]. Preventive Medicine, Volume 26, Number 2.

Moyers, Bill (2009) “Rachel Carson and DDT: A Renewed Controversy” [] accessed April 9, 2012).

Muir, Patricia (2007) “A History of Pesticide Use,” webpage at Oregon State University. [] accessed April 9, 2012.

Slater, Dashka (2012) “The Frog of War,” Mother Jones. January/February. [] accessed April 9, 2012.