ling aspect of the this legislation is what we do not know about it. He calls the FoodQuality Protection Act of 1996 the Trojan iceberg. Like the Trojan horse, I has several desirablecharacteristics, however just as 90% of the iceberg cannot be seen so will the impact of the FoodProtection Act of 1996 (Schreiber 21).The second reason for farmers and chemical producers opposition to this law is the effectit will 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, whichgreatly affect that industry.I feel that I stand somewhere in the middle on this issue. It has many strong points bothin favor 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 longperiod of 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 atthe surface on issues such as this. I do think it is a good idea to regulate pesticides in a way thatis the most beneficial to consumers, but I also believe that if this regulation is not carried outproperly, farmers consumers, and everyone will be greatly affected. This law can help people,but is also can hurt many farmers by placing unrealistic expectations of having perfectly safepesticides. California alone produces 20% of the worlds food and without these chemicals thiswould not be possible. Pesticides, although harmful in some cases are overall beneficial toCalifornia agriculture and the world.Myself growing up on a farm I understand how important these chemicals are to ma...
