the article “Industry Driven Bill Guts Federal Safeguards Protecting Endangered Species from Toxic Pesticides”

Quoting from “Industry Driven” By releasing dangerous substances into the environment, Bill “Guts Federal Safeguards Protecting Endangered Species from Toxic Pesticides” threatens both people and wildlife. I am aware of the threat that pesticide releases represent to both plants and wildlife. Animals weaken or die after being consumed, whereas the majority of plants wither and perish. The majority of chemicals wind up in rivers, where animals go to drink. Particularly wild animals whose mobility is uncontrolled are more at risk in this situation. I am also aware of legislation that needs to be passed to make sure that everyone who releases these chemicals is responsible for paying for environmental cleanup. The article, however, brings to light the conflicts between the environmentalist and the producers, an issue I thought was harmonized in the past. The producers seek high production even at the expense of the impacts on the environment that the production would have, while the environmentalist seeks for sustainable production. For instance, the pesticide industry assumes the impacts and negotiates on a rule that would deny the Environmental Protection Agency a chance to regulate the release of such pesticides.

I suppose the harmonization of regulations to govern the release of toxic chemicals to the environment is a challenge. This challenge could be a result of the differences that occur between the producers and the regulator’s goals. As both have different objectives in their strategies, the link between the two should be well designed. However, I suppose there should be a pre-set of rules that are provided to any company that wishes to deal with toxic chemicals. These rules should be binding the organizations, and actions should be taken to punish any company that breaks them. Therefore, I would wish to learn more about the environmental requirements set for pesticide companies and penalties imposed in those who have not followed the legislation.