Write A One-Page Paper: Select An Environmental Risk From Fo ✓ Solved

Write a one-page paper: Select an environmental risk from fo

Write a one-page paper: Select an environmental risk from food production or manufacturing. In the introduction identify the specific risk and whether it is related to food production or manufacturing. Describe the activity creating the risk, including location or setting and stakeholders. Risk analysis: identify release information; research circumstances of exposure; document examples of releases or plausible scenarios; describe effects on individual and population health with examples and health-related incidents. Risk communication: evaluate attention-getting potential based on characteristics that arouse outrage. Management and harm reduction: research how this risk is managed and reduced (regulation, legislation, cleanup programs, costs of mitigation); evaluate the success of at least two management or harm reduction approaches and support with references. Use at least four credible sources and cite each in-text.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

This paper examines pesticide runoff from intensive agricultural crop production as an environmental risk originating in food production. The activity creating the risk is large-scale application of agricultural pesticides (organophosphates, neonicotinoids, and other classes) to row crops and orchards in regions with intensive farming such as the U.S. Midwest, California’s Central Valley, and parts of Europe and Asia. Key stakeholders include farmers and farmworkers, rural communities who rely on surface and groundwater for drinking water, local and national regulators (e.g., EPA, state agencies), food processors and retailers, and environmental and public health advocacy groups (EPA, 2018; FAO, 2017).

Risk Analysis — Release Information and Exposure Circumstances

Release occurs when pesticides applied to fields are transported from fields into aquatic systems or drinking-water sources by runoff, spray drift, or subsurface leaching, particularly after heavy rainfall or irrigation events (Kolpin et al., 1998; EPA, 2018). Point and nonpoint sources exist: surface runoff from fields is nonpoint, whereas accidental spills or improper mixing near water bodies can produce point releases. Typical exposure scenarios include contaminated drinking water in small rural systems or private wells, recreation in contaminated surface waters, and indirect exposure via food residues and contaminated fish (WHO, 2016).

Documented examples include widespread detection of multiple pesticides in U.S. streams and rivers, with concentrations peaking during runoff events tied to application seasons (Kolpin et al., 1998). Acute incidents have affected farmworkers via spray drift and improper handling, causing documented acute poisoning episodes (WHO, 2016). Chronic low-level exposures are common among children in agricultural communities through drinking water and dietary intake, with several cohort studies linking prenatal and early-life pesticide exposure to neurodevelopmental effects (Bouchard et al., 2011; Rauh et al., 2011).

Health Effects on Individuals and Populations

Individual health effects depend on the pesticide class and exposure level. Organophosphates, for example, inhibit acetylcholinesterase and can cause acute symptoms (nausea, headaches, respiratory distress) and, with repeated prenatal exposure, neurodevelopmental deficits (Bouchard et al., 2011; Rauh et al., 2011). Neonicotinoids and other modern compounds have less characterized chronic human effects but are associated epidemiologically with developmental and endocrine outcomes in some studies (WHO, 2016). At the population level, chronic low-level exposures correlate with increased rates of neurodevelopmental disorders, potential reproductive impacts, and exacerbation of existing health disparities in farming communities (Bouchard et al., 2011; Landrigan et al., 2018).

Risk Communication and Outrage Potential

Pesticide runoff scores high on several features that generate public concern: involuntary exposure (residents do not choose to be exposed through their drinking water), perceived unfairness (rural communities bearing burdens from agricultural activity that benefits broader populations), and potential for serious effects on children (highly salient) (Sandman’s outrage factors summarized in health-risk literature). Media coverage of farmworker poisonings, contaminated wells, and high-profile regulatory actions (e.g., restrictions on specific pesticides) further raises awareness and outrage (EPA, 2018; WHO, 2016). Conversely, the technical nature of environmental transport and the ubiquity of agricultural production can reduce perceived immediacy among the general public, complicating consistent attention.

Management and Harm Reduction — Policies and Practices

Regulatory and non-regulatory measures aim to reduce release and exposure. Regulatory approaches include pesticide registration and tolerances, application restrictions, and water-quality regulations under frameworks like the U.S. Clean Water Act and pesticide-specific rules and advisories enforced by agencies such as EPA and EU counterparts (EPA, 2018; EFSA, 2013). Non-regulatory management includes best management practices (BMPs) such as riparian buffer strips, conservation tillage, vegetated filter strips, constructed wetlands, and integrated pest management (IPM) that reduce application rates and runoff (USDA NRCS, 2012).

Evaluation of Two Harm-Reduction Approaches

1) Regulatory restrictions and registration controls: Banning or restricting high-risk pesticides (e.g., phased restrictions on certain organophosphates and neonicotinoids) has demonstrably reduced environmental concentrations and acute poisoning incidents in some jurisdictions (EFSA, 2013; EPA, 2021). For example, removal of highly toxic compounds from agricultural use typically leads to reduced detection in monitoring programs and fewer acute poisoning reports (Kolpin et al., 1998; EPA, 2018). Limitations include regulatory lag, political resistance, and substitution with other chemicals whose long-term risks may be less well characterized.

2) Best Management Practices and IPM: Buffer strips and constructed wetlands have been shown in field studies to significantly reduce pesticide loads in runoff (USDA NRCS, 2012). IPM programs that emphasize pest monitoring, biological controls, and reduced pesticide reliance lower total pesticide use and hence runoff risk; several regional IPM initiatives report measurable reductions in pesticide applications and improved water quality over time (FAO, 2017). Challenges include adoption costs for farmers, variable effectiveness depending on landscape and hydrology, and the need for technical assistance and incentives to ensure widespread implementation.

Comparatively, regulatory bans provide immediate legal constraints that can sharply reduce the use of the most hazardous compounds, but depend on enforcement and may shift risks to alternative pesticides. BMPs and IPM are more sustainable and address the root cause (use reduction and landscape management) but require investment, farmer buy-in, and supportive policy incentives (subsidies, technical extension services) to scale (EPA, 2018; FAO, 2017).

Conclusion

Pesticide runoff from food production is a significant environmental and public health risk with documented acute and chronic effects, particularly in agricultural communities and among children. Effective risk management requires a mix of regulatory action to restrict the most hazardous compounds and practical on-the-ground measures—riparian buffers, constructed wetlands, and IPM—to reduce release and exposure. Risk communication should emphasize the involuntary nature of exposure, potential impacts on children, and practical steps communities and producers can take. Continued monitoring, research into alternatives, and policy incentives for BMP adoption are critical to reduce both immediate harms and long-term health burdens (EPA, 2018; Bouchard et al., 2011).

References

  • Bouchard, M. F., Chevrier, J., Harley, K. G., Kogut, K., Vedar, M., Calderon, N., ... & Eskenazi, B. (2011). Prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and IQ in 7-year-old children. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(8), 1189–1195. (Bouchard et al., 2011)
  • European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2013). Conclusions on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees. EFSA Journal.
  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2017). The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management. FAO.
  • Kolpin, D. W., Thurman, E. M., & Meyer, M. T. (1998). Pesticides in streams across the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 32(2), 558–566.
  • Landrigan, P. J., Fuller, R., & Acosta, N. J. R., et al. (2018). The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. The Lancet, 391(10119), 462–512.
  • Rauh, V., Arunajadai, S., Horton, M., et al. (2011). Seven-year neurodevelopmental scores and prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(8), 1196–1201. (Rauh et al., 2011)
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2018). Pesticides and Water Quality. EPA. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/pesticides
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2021). EPA revokes chlorpyrifos tolerances. EPA news release.
  • United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). (2012). Riparian buffer technical guide. USDA NRCS.
  • World Health Organization (WHO). (2016). Pesticide exposure and health effects. WHO factsheet and technical reports.

Related Assignments