Letters to the Editor for Dec. 18 – News-Leader
Missing the flocks of birds you used to see?
In response to Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s editorial of Dec. 11 regarding the decision of the EPA to ban the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos in agriculture, let me ask everyone a simple question: Do you remember the fall days in years past when vast flocks of blackbirds and grackles would fill the skies as we were driving along the roads on our way to or from work? The numbers of birds seemed endless. Second question: Do you see those anymore? Third question: Why not?
In 2019, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology published a comprehensive assessment of net bird population changes in the U.S. and Canada which revealed an across-the-board decline that scientists called “staggering.” In aggregate, North American bird populations have declined by 2.9 billion breeding adults, with devastating losses among birds in every biome. Forest bird populations have lost 1 billion birds and grassland bird populations collectively have declined by 53%, or another 720 million birds. Fourth question: Why is that?
Look no further than the poisonous pesticides, like chlorpyrifos and neonicotinoids, that Rep. Hartzler is trying to peddle on behalf of the American chemical industry and which line the pockets of her campaign war chest.
Birds are slaughtered by the highly concentrated doses of chlorpyrifos found in seed treatments and granular applications (dried pellets applied to fields) and are deadly to the birds that eat them. Many crops, including soybeans, corn, cotton and wheat are grown from treated seeds. Additionally, chlorpyrifos can also decimate the food base for birds that eat fish and insects, because it is one of the most toxic pesticides for aquatic ecosystems. One study from the Netherlands found that bird population trends were consistently more negative in areas with higher surface-water concentrations of chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos is now banned in the European Union.
Fifth question: When will we ever learn that we are killing our planet through the use of toxic chemicals that are having devastating impacts on life as we know it? I miss seeing all the birds that I saw in the past, and the numbers are rapidly declining, you can see it every day, every spring morning, every fall afternoon. Rachel Carson’s “silent spring” is coming to pass. Final question: Were we not able to feed everyone before we started using all those poisons?
James Fossard, Springfield
Hartzler downplayed chlorpyrifos dangers
Pesticides have made a significant difference in agricultural yields but it is not perfect.
Too many negative outcomes for people and other neighboring crops take place when chlorpyrifos is used carelessly. People and other farming fields can be harmed when winds or crop dusting are used without proper care. Farm workers are exposed needlessly because they must keep working even when exposure is present.
People who accidentally inhale or ingest high doses of chlorpyrifos may develop neurotoxicity, which can manifest with symptoms such as nausea, dizziness and confusion. Extremely high exposures to the chemical can lead to respiratory paralysis and death. The controversial chemical has also been linked to developmental problems and low IQs in children. People can develop symptoms of nausea, respiratory paralysis, even death. According to ConsumerNotice.org, it can also be associated with low IQ and other neurological problems in children. Without careful, conscientious use in clearly-defined areas, this insecticide is too dangerous to use. The risks outweigh the benefits.
Kathleen Murnan, Springfield
Who’s the bigot?
In her latest, Ingrid Jacques, columnist for USA Today, seems convinced that she has ‘owned the libs’. She’s upset that a group of good, kind-hearted Christians were refused service at a restaurant. She ends with “Tolerance is a two-way street. Perhaps it’s progressives who need to look in the mirror.”
Her column revolves around a supposed double standard. The truly kind and moral Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant. Jacques wants us to imagine the outcry if a conservative restaurateur refused service to an LGTBQ group.
There is no double standard. Either a business owner can refuse service based solely on their perception of what is moral or sinful or they can’t. If it’s okay for a baker to refuse to bake based upon religious views then it’s okay to refuse to feed folks using the same reasoning.
There should be no religious exemptions for anything. If you choose to be in business then the moral thing to do is deal with all who have effective demand for your product or service. It shouldn’t matter if you think that dealing with Jews, Muslims, fat people, or people who are left-handed (or LGBTQ) violates your moral sensibilities. A minority-owned business must sell its wares to a white supremacist and the same goes in reverse.
The gerrymandered Supreme Court will undoubtedly find in the latest case before it that the poor, beleaguered, web designer can deny equal access to gay people and use religion as her excuse just as they did in the case of the baker.
For all who find these to be just outcomes, enjoy them while you can. Religion and religious expression formed the basis for denying basic equal rights to minorities and women, prohibiting interracial marriage, and, of course, gay marriage. All are now enshrined in law and how your religion feels about it is immaterial.
Eventually these latest attempts at sanctioning discrimination will be reversed and people will get to be whoever and whatever they happen to be when they walk in your business’s door (real or virtual) and you will, by golly, serve them.
Chuck McDaniel, Battlefield