tling aspectof the this legislation is what we do not know about it. He calls the Food Quality Protection Actof 1996 the Trojan iceberg. Like the Trojan horse, I has several desirable characteristics, howeverjust as 90% of the iceberg cannot be seen so will the impact of the Food Protection Act of 1996(Schreiber 21).The second reason for farmers and chemical producers opposition to this law is the effect itwill have on small crops. They believe this law will limit or in some cases eliminate somepesticides used in small crops. Small crops dont make enough money to fund research anddevelopment on new, safe chemicals. Therefore limiting the choices growers have, which greatlyaffect that industry.I feel that I stand somewhere in the middle on this issue. It has many strong points both infavor and against. I believe that the re-registration of chemicals is very important, and I alsobelieve it would be helpful to fully understand these pesticides effect on humans over a long periodof time. I wonder if it is possible to obtain accurate information due to so many differentvariables. Improper application, over exposure, and misuse are things that should be taken intoconsideration when determining if a chemical is safe to use. Many times we often only look at thesurface on issues such as this. I do think it is a good idea to regulate pesticides in a way that is themost beneficial to consumers, but I also believe that if this regulation is not carried out properly,farmers consumers, and everyone will be greatly affected. This law can help people, but is alsocan hurt many farmers by placing unrealistic expectations of having perfectly safe pesticides. California alone produces 20% of the worlds food and without these chemicals this would not bepossible. Pesticides, although harmful in some cases are overall beneficial to California agricultureand the world.Myself growing up on a farm I understand how important these chemicals are to ma...