Natural Cheimcals In the Environment

So its that time again, my course discussions usually fuel my blog posts, as I sometimes have nothing to blog about and these topics are relevant to current issues.   My online course this term is Natural Chemicals in the Environment and we have been asked to pick sides based on our own opinions right off the bat.  If you know me you know how I feel about these issues and if you don't you are about to.  Regardless keep reading please.
The first topic to debate is whether synthetic pesticides should be banned and only natural ones should be used or if both should be used.  The second is whether medicinal plants should be harvested in an unsustainable way to save lives or if the medicinal plant biodiversity should be saved over the lives of a few people.  Below are my positions. 

I have chosen Position 1: In order to protect the environment and human health only natural chemicals should be used as pesticides and synthetic pesticides should be banned.  I chose this side because I am strongly against the use of synthetic pesticides, as they have been proven to cause problems in air, surface water and groundwater as stated by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring (1962).   Beyond these obvious environmental problems synthetic pesticides have been linked to health problems in humans.  These problems include neurotoxicity such as nervous system damage, respiratory problems, seizures and even death, as well as carcinogenic effects linking to multiple types of cancer, endocrine disruption causing hormonal imbalances which can lead to cancer, and rises in childhood asthma (Draper and Reed).   What continues to make no sense in the synthetic chemical use is that we spray our food with chemicals that we know kill organisms.  If it does that to bugs what does it do to our food, or to us? Should we really be eating it? If we were to use natural chemicals such as aggregate pheromones it would give the pests a false sense of predators which they would avoid it, so if we stick to these or other biological controls our food and our health will remain safer. 

Draper, D. and Reed, M. Our Environment A Canadian Perspective 4^th Edition. Chapter 6. P 215.  Nelson Education Ltd. 2009. 

PART 2: Saving Lives VS Saving Species?

I have chosen Position 2: Protection of biodiversity of medicinal plant products must take precedence over the lives of a few.   This may seem to be a controversial choice, or that I am not being sensitive to those who need medicinal plants, but if the plants are conserved and harvested sustainably then more lives will be saved in the long run.  Medicinal plants are the oldest “medicine” known to man and have been used for 1000’s of years as natural remedies for illness and injuries.  If we have managed to use these plants in a sustainable way for centuries then we should be able to continue to do so.  Unsustainable harvesting of plants, especially medicinal should not be justified for a quick fix to “save lives”.  This would only be suitable for short periods and can cause serious long-term damage to the crops and roots of these plants.  If we protect this biodiversity of medicinal plants we are conserving natural medicine that has been used for centuries to future generations, where as if we harvest it unsustainably it will run out and will not be able to save lives in the future. I also believe that indigenous people should be entitled to have first pick at the crops in their areas before the plants can be cultivated for international sale to meet the global demands.   This is because they have used the plants for generations and cannot afford or have access to synthetic medicines that wealthier countries have.