U.S. Chemical Problem
U.S. Chemical Problem
The agricultural sector in the contemporary world depends greatly on scientific and technology innovations to maximize product harvests and limit destructive forces simultaneously. The main benefits of advancements in science and technology are increased quantity and quality while the losses include destruction by weather, diseases and animals. Pesticide use among agricultural players has gained widespread acceptance in the last decade. However, with the development of pesticides, there has been increased awareness of the harmful effects of using these chemicals on agricultural products, human beings and the environment in general. On the other hand, corporate pressure to exploit the agricultural sector regularly infringes most of the regulations and policies placed to control the industry. The relationship between the U.S. chemical factory and the East and North African agricultural authority represents one such relationship.
In the transaction between U.S. chemical factory and the East and North African agricultural authority, there were several beneficiaries. The U.SC chemical factory stood to gain approximately $25 million that would be a large profit margin from the sales of Dieldrin pesticide. This particular transaction was beneficial to the chemical company because they were operating in a unique market. The number of companies operating in the chemical industry within the United States is limited and therefore, the issue of competition for prices was not significant. Therefore, the company expected to make the normal margin on the sale. The company would also benefit from the upgrading and stimulation of the chemical plants that will produce the new batches of Dieldrin pesticide. The East and North African agricultural authority also stood to gain immensely from the purchase of the large amount of pesticides. This is because they would be able to realize their organizational goal of averting the locust plague that would cause a lot of destruction to the cash crops in Africa. Lastly, the United States government would also benefit from the export and shipping taxes paid by the chemical company when exporting the pesticides to Africa.
In this particular situation, several groups were harmed by the transaction. The biggest loss was felt by the local inhabitants of African states. The batch of Dieldrin pesticide that was delivered to several states in Africa would be sprayed on the viable fields with the intention of deterring locusts from invading the farms. Groups associated with environmental conservation were also harmed in the transactions involving the chemical company and the East and North African agricultural authority. These environmental conservation groups were interested in preserving specific species of animals and plants. In Africa, a large part of the flora and fauna exist in its natural state making the continent a valuable location for future generations of wildlife. The pesticides were purchased with the intention of eliminating the locusts plague. However, locusts take about three to seven years before they are fully mature and elimination using chemicals would sharply reduce their population.
Lastly, farmers will also be harmed by the move to purchase and use Dieldrin in fending of the destructive impacts of locusts. The long-term usage of Dieldrin has residual effects on cash crops plated by African farmers will affect the quality and availability of produce for several decades after the chemical was used. Dieldrin is also toxic and if the people in African states and beyond consume crops contaminated with the chemical, they would suffer critical physical harm and possibly, death.
Extended / Uncertain Consequences
In the transaction between these two parties, several uncertainties exist that also have significant consequences. The production, distribution and usage of Dieldrin has been banned within the United States and if the U.S. chemical company were to face a legal suit presented by environmental activists, the transaction between the East and North African agricultural authority and the chemical company would be considered null and void. These efforts by environmental groups will be useful in saving the flora and fauna in Africa from being exposed to toxic Dieldrin pesticides. These efforts to stop the production of Dieldrin will obviously have the backing of the federal state.
One of the alternatives to this transaction would be to establish a different chemical pesticide to be used in eliminating the locust wave in North and East Africa. Dieldrin has been confirmed to be a toxic chemical that has long-term residual effect on both plant and animal DNA. Therefore, one alternative would be to develop a less toxic but still effective chemical that would be approved by the relevant authorities. This alternative avoids any lawsuits and economic consequences from the government. The other alternative would be to desist from producing and distributing Dieldrin-based pesticides altogether. This would count as the most ethical decision by the chemical factory. From the report, it is evident that legally, Dieldrin production has been allowed by the federal government. The regulations ban the production but allow a company to handle their own decisions and consequences. The last alternative would be coordinate with the African governments in order to regulate the usage of Dieldrin in agricultural sectors.
Using the above alternatives, several outcomes are possible. Developing a safer and more efficient chemical pesticide to control locusts in Africa is a long-term solution that can help in eliminating toxic products globally. If the chemical company chooses to continue with the production of Dieldrin, they may face economic sanctions and lawsuits. This decision to continue producing toxic materials exposes many people in African states to the harmful side effects of Dieldrin. The most ethical choice of desisting from producing Dieldrin can have positive outcomes for the chemical company by promoting its image as a responsible organization.
By agreeing to produce the organic pesticide, the U.S. chemical factory was also opening themselves up to the possibility of incurring losses from the lawsuits. Dieldrin has clearly been labeled as a toxic chemical in the United States and its production was already banned. The actions of the chemical factory were guided by economic interests. .However, there would also be economic losses for the company if they were sued for production of banned substances that affected populations that came into contact with the chemical.
Production and distribution of Dieldrin should be banned completely. Numerous scientific studies have affirmed that the long-term use of Dieldrin has adverse effects on the genetics in human beings and plants. There are universal thresholds that are placed by the United Nations and other regulatory bodies concerning SPRI emissions and these limits were placed because the pesticides were highly toxic to different forms of nature and have the ability to be retained in animal and plant DNA. This is the main reason why Dieldrin is categorized as a persistent organic pollutant.
Top-quality papers guaranteed
100% original papers
We sell only unique pieces of writing completed according to your demands.
We use security encryption to keep your personal data protected.
We can give your money back if something goes wrong with your order.
Enjoy the free features we offer to everyone
Get a free title page formatted according to the specifics of your particular style.
Request us to use APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, or any other style for your essay.
Don’t pay extra for a list of references that perfectly fits your academic needs.
24/7 support assistance
Ask us a question anytime you need to—we don’t charge extra for supporting you!
Calculate how much your essay costs
What we are popular for
- English 101
- Business Studies