While consumers purchase produces from markets, many of buyers are unaware of deadly pesticides that are regularly used on them. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) stated that even organic crops could be sprayed as long as pesticides were deemed “natural”. Americans had been using chemicals on produces since World War II and continuously used until the first strike took place, the Delano Grape Strike. This first protest was held in order to expose the risk in consuming intoxicated grapes. Pesticides not only affect the consumers, but also water, air, and soil. Cesar believed that five of the most dangerous pesticides used in grapes production should be banned because they caused health issues and may lead to death. In Cesar Chavez's Wrath of the Grapes Boycott, given in 1986 in Austin, Texas at a community center farm worker, labor leader and civil right activist Cesar regarding the harmful of agriculture in California, five of the leading pesticides should be banned of use in grapes and any crops. Several reports came out from The New York Times, stated that, "nearly 1,000 California, Pacific Northwest, Alaskan, and Canadian consumers became ill as the result of eating watermelons tainted with the powerful insecticide Aldicarb,” He, then, continued, “labeled the most acutely toxic pesticide registered in the United States." It shows the loophole on the regulations of the use of pesticides. Even though, it was one of the most toxic, unaware consumers were able to purchase those contaminated produces. One of the reports came from the Environmental Protection Agency stating that polluting the agriculture was the urgent matter that needed attention right away. Pesticides were also suspecting to be the main cause, "the illness of over 300,000 of the nation's 4 million farm workers." Cesar, then, added, "of the 27 legally restricted toxic poisons currently used on grapes, at least 5 are potentially as dangerous or more hazardous to consumers and grape workers than deadly Aldicarb and Orthene." They were Parathion, Phosdrin, Dinoseb, Methyl Bromide and Captan.
As mentioned in the previous paragraph about the threats of consuming infested crops, Cesar wanted consumers and farmers to be more concerned about the health and supported him on this issue, as he was also a farm worker. Cesar believed farmers were closest to notice the health hazards within farms and those grapes that were sold to consumers. He devoted his entire life to bring the improvements, and better the pay and working condition for agricultures and farmers. In 1962, he co-founded the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) with Dolores Huerta. It was later called the United Farm Workers (UFW). Every protest that he was in, he needed to be very informative about the topic. All of his researches were from trusted sources, The New York Times, and the Environmental Protection Agency. His work can also be proven on keywords used in his context. All of the pesticides mentioned in his essay were defined and confirmed by a group of researchers that they were precarious for farming. Cesar Chavez used evidences and factual inputs to elaborate his points. Cesar first mentioned his success of the boycott where he was the leader. That built up his credibility before getting into the details of his new contexts. His context, although seemed very vague, he had articles to support his ideas. For instance, he mentioned that it could occurred to anyone who came across these toxics insoluble, “What statistics are important to Adrian Espinoza 7 years old and dying of cancer,” To make the matter worst, he stretched, “with 8 other children—whose only source of water was polluted with pesticides.” Cesar brought emotion and repetitive words to describe the situation they were currently in. For example, “How can I explain these chemicals to 3 year old Amalia Larios who will never walk, born with a spinal defect due to pesticide exposure of her mother’’. The cases that were declared in this article mostly tied to the youths as they portrayed the innocent lives that were victims of those pesticides. Cesar used the language that was easy for his audience to understand. It was very effective because, not only his text got straight to the point, his examples inserted in to make his statement very strong and emotional. Cesar brought headlines and examples that were emotional enough to bring audiences to reconsider about the conditions they were in.
In conclusion, the argument was considerably effective because based on his audiences, farm workers and consumers, the right amount of evidences used and the simplicity of his writings made it easier for everyone, who was affected or in the situation, to understand and be able to get involved. This is the serious matter due to the fact that it deals with human’s life and death. In the end, all of pesticides are dangerous no matter of what they are used for. Consumers are the ones who will eat, drink these hazardous produces. The ban will not only make the food cleaner, but the whole agriculture healthier.