Honey, Tell Me What’s Wrong? A recent analysis on honey concluded that the natural landscape worldwide is thoroughly contaminated with pesticides. Neonicotinoid pesticides, which have been found in a majority of honey samples across the world, cause paralysis and death in insects. In The Guardian article “Honey tests reveal global contamination by bee-harming pesticides,” Damian Carrington, through ethos and logos, effectively advocates for neonicotinoid restriction after explaining the honey study. Carrington begins by providing context about the study on honey. First, his inclusion, early in the article, that honey is “an excellent indicator of the pesticide pollution” since “bees range over many kilometres to collect nectar and pollen”
…show more content…
For instance, Carrington quotes University of Neuchâtel’s Professor Edward Mitchell, who says that the pesticides found in the honey samples are “something like 4,000 to 10,000 times more toxic than DDT” (Carrington). The comparison clearly delineates the intense magnitude of the harm of pesticides since DDT was banned worldwide under the 2001 Stockholm Convention (“Stockholm Convention”). Given that DDT, the weaker of the two, was banned, banning neonicotinoids would be logical--Carrington’s argument is, as a result, expressed to be rational. Additionally, he establishes that his argument is well-supported by quoting Professor Dave Goulson, Christopher Connolly, Jonathan Storkey, and Jean-Marc Bonmatin--individuals who agree that that pesticide restriction is long overdue. For instance, Carrington includes Bonmatin’s statement that pesticides “provide no real benefit to farmers, decreases soil quality, hurts biodiversity and contaminates water, air and food” (Carrington). This thorough list of cons provides a refutation to those, such as farmers, that claim pesticides are worth the cons. Including several statements supporting the same argument by different people allows Carrington to tacitly repeat and emphasize his claim. Carrington achieves his purpose of advancing the argument for restriction of pesticides through presenting the harmful extent of neonicotinoids’ toxicity, as well as demonstrating that his argument is
For instance, Carrington quotes University of Neuchâtel’s Professor Edward Mitchell, who says that the pesticides found in the honey samples are “something like 4,000 to 10,000 times more toxic than DDT” (Carrington). The comparison clearly delineates the intense magnitude of the harm of pesticides since DDT was banned worldwide under the 2001 Stockholm Convention (“Stockholm Convention”). Given that DDT, the weaker of the two, was banned, banning neonicotinoids would be logical--Carrington’s argument is, as a result, expressed to be rational. Additionally, he establishes that his argument is well-supported by quoting Professor Dave Goulson, Christopher Connolly, Jonathan Storkey, and Jean-Marc Bonmatin--individuals who agree that that pesticide restriction is long overdue. For instance, Carrington includes Bonmatin’s statement that pesticides “provide no real benefit to farmers, decreases soil quality, hurts biodiversity and contaminates water, air and food” (Carrington). This thorough list of cons provides a refutation to those, such as farmers, that claim pesticides are worth the cons. Including several statements supporting the same argument by different people allows Carrington to tacitly repeat and emphasize his claim. Carrington achieves his purpose of advancing the argument for restriction of pesticides through presenting the harmful extent of neonicotinoids’ toxicity, as well as demonstrating that his argument is