Selling domestically-banned pesticides to developing countries

[the_great_dalmuti]

Here’s an article:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/01/pesticide.treaty.reut/index.html

UNEP (U.N. Environmental Programme) noted that many pesticides that were banned or restricted in industrialized countries were still used in poor nations and said the convention should make more information available about the potential risks of such chemicals.

The treaty stipulates that countries exporting chemicals damaging to health or the environment have to inform importing nations of the dangers they pose, while also making it illegal to trade in chemicals against the wishes of recipient countries.

This situation seems like a very formal statement of disrespect, to many developing nations.

Though DDT was banned many years ago by most industrialized nations, Monsanto continues to both produce it, and sell it to less developed countries.

Is this morally permissible? Is this good politics?

How can one country acknowledge the scientifically-proven risks of certain agricultural pesticides, and yet allow domestic companies to sell the vary same chemicals to other nations?

Why must morality always take a “back seat” to economics?

-TGD

[Narile]

I need to find the reference, but as I recall, DDT is somewhat unfairly maligned. It is just about the best pesticide made. The problem with how it was used previously was that the concentrations were way to high. Turns out that concentrations of about only a tenth of as much DDT to water are just as effective and don’t build up in the local wildlife, the chemical breaking down fast enough at such low concentrations. So if the product is being used in that manner, no reason not to make it and sell it.

[Opus1]

I will not make a blanket defense of selling products that are banned in the US abroad, but we must take local circumstances into consideration. Perhaps a pesticide that causes a slight increase in the cancer rate in the U.S. will actually save lives by eliminating thousands of deaths to malaria in another country. If this is the case, it would be positively immoral not to sell the product.

[AZCowboy]

Particularly, if as the excerpt indicates, that information regarding risks are disclosed, it seems perfectly moral. And the politics aren’t interesting.

Building on Opus1’s post, each pesticide has different properties, and each developing country has unique circumstances. Sure, certain restrictions should be observed, but if applications and use seem reasonable in the context, why not?

[Odesio]

*Originally posted by the_great_dalmuti *
**
Though DDT was banned many years ago by most industrialized nations, Monsanto continues to both produce it, and sell it to less developed countries.

Is this morally permissible? Is this good politics?

How can one country acknowledge the scientifically-proven risks of certain agricultural pesticides, and yet allow domestic companies to sell the vary same chemicals to other nations?

Why must morality always take a “back seat” to economics?

-TGD **

Why don’t we just let the legislative bodies of other nations take care of themselves. If they think the potential hazards of DDT outweigh the benefits then they’re free to outlaw it. There are areas of the world, especially in the less developed areas, where insects represent a dire threat to the health of the people. Maybe a few thin eggs are worth it if it lowers the cases of malaria or something.

Marc