While I agree with the premise and would love for these chemicals to be banned everywhere, many farmers still rely on them to grow their crops and raise their animals. So, I think alternatives first …Read MoreWhile I agree with the premise and would love for these chemicals to be banned everywhere, many farmers still rely on them to grow their crops and raise their animals. So, I think alternatives first need to be approved and put in place, slowly transitioning out of the hazardous compounds to ensure it has the least impact on farmers. Another issue is that less developed countries may not be able to afford to use the healthier alternative. Because of this, we would need to make the safer option very affordable, effective, and easy to use–and ensure they can be manufactured worldwide–before we can realistically discuss a global ban.Read Less
A global ban could reduce environmental damage and protect human health, but it may also disrupt food production, especially in countries that rely on these chemicals to maintain crop yields.
A worldwide prohibition on”hazardous chemicals” in agriculture presupposes that there is a universally accepted, sicentfically rigorous definition of what constitutes “hazardous.” In reality, toxicity …Read MoreA worldwide prohibition on”hazardous chemicals” in agriculture presupposes that there is a universally accepted, sicentfically rigorous definition of what constitutes “hazardous.” In reality, toxicity is not binary; it depends on dosage, exposure duration, environmental conditions, crop type, and application method. Without clear, standardized metrics, such as LD50 thresholds, persistence levels, bioaccumulation indices, and risk-benefit assessments, a global ban would be conceptually vague and practically unenforceable. The absence of precises criteria risks turning regulatory decisions into guesswork rather than evidence=based policy.
If the term “hazardous chemical” is not defined with strict scientfic clarity, powerful countries could use the ambiguity to impose selective bans on competitors’ products while exempting their own industries. Vague classifications create an environment where chemical regulation becomes a geopolitical instrument rather than a public health measure. This would enable protectionism disguised as enviromental concern, disproportionately harming agricultural exporters who lack the political poltical leverage to contest arbitrary designations. A global ban without clear definitions risks weaponizing environmental policy instead of protecting global ecposyetems.
In many agricultural contexts, certain chemicals may present risks only under specific misuse conditions but are vital for controolling frameworks, a sweeping crop failure, and maintaining yield. Without precise classification frameworks , a sweeping ban may inadvertenly prohibit chemicals that are safe when used correctly, leading to productivity loss and food, particularly in regions with high pest pressure and limited alternatives. Moreover, ambigous or overly broad bans could discourage innovation in safer pesticide development, as companies fear unpredictable regulatory environments. Therefore, any meaningful global effort must begin with rigorous, transparent, and scientifically agreed-upon metrics, rather than imposing a blanket prohibition. Read Less
While I agree with the premise and would love for these chemicals to be banned everywhere, many farmers still rely on them to grow their crops and raise their animals. So, I think alternatives first …Read MoreWhile I agree with the premise and would love for these chemicals to be banned everywhere, many farmers still rely on them to grow their crops and raise their animals. So, I think alternatives first need to be approved and put in place, slowly transitioning out of the hazardous compounds to ensure it has the least impact on farmers. Another issue is that less developed countries may not be able to afford to use the healthier alternative. Because of this, we would need to make the safer option very affordable, effective, and easy to use–and ensure they can be manufactured worldwide–before we can realistically discuss a global ban. Read Less
A global ban could reduce environmental damage and protect human health, but it may also disrupt food production, especially in countries that rely on these chemicals to maintain crop yields.
A worldwide prohibition on”hazardous chemicals” in agriculture presupposes that there is a universally accepted, sicentfically rigorous definition of what constitutes “hazardous.” In reality, toxicity …Read MoreA worldwide prohibition on”hazardous chemicals” in agriculture presupposes that there is a universally accepted, sicentfically rigorous definition of what constitutes “hazardous.” In reality, toxicity is not binary; it depends on dosage, exposure duration, environmental conditions, crop type, and application method. Without clear, standardized metrics, such as LD50 thresholds, persistence levels, bioaccumulation indices, and risk-benefit assessments, a global ban would be conceptually vague and practically unenforceable. The absence of precises criteria risks turning regulatory decisions into guesswork rather than evidence=based policy.
If the term “hazardous chemical” is not defined with strict scientfic clarity, powerful countries could use the ambiguity to impose selective bans on competitors’ products while exempting their own industries. Vague classifications create an environment where chemical regulation becomes a geopolitical instrument rather than a public health measure. This would enable protectionism disguised as enviromental concern, disproportionately harming agricultural exporters who lack the political poltical leverage to contest arbitrary designations. A global ban without clear definitions risks weaponizing environmental policy instead of protecting global ecposyetems.
In many agricultural contexts, certain chemicals may present risks only under specific misuse conditions but are vital for controolling frameworks, a sweeping crop failure, and maintaining yield. Without precise classification frameworks , a sweeping ban may inadvertenly prohibit chemicals that are safe when used correctly, leading to productivity loss and food, particularly in regions with high pest pressure and limited alternatives. Moreover, ambigous or overly broad bans could discourage innovation in safer pesticide development, as companies fear unpredictable regulatory environments. Therefore, any meaningful global effort must begin with rigorous, transparent, and scientifically agreed-upon metrics, rather than imposing a blanket prohibition. Read Less