My initial opinion prior to the debate is that in regards to what should be allowed to be used as pesticides, I believe that both synthetic and natural pesticides have its advantages and disadvantages. Natural pesticides that are found in certain plants have been specifically derived by that plant to protect itself from harmful pests. Although it may be effective in killing certain insects, it may not be as effective for other uses. For instance: a plant is found to secrete toxic chemicals in its nectar that target fire ants and the only way for the ant to be poisoned would be if it drank from the nectar, or bit into the plant itself. This toxin is contained inside the plant and has no exterior effects to surrounding animals. If a manufacturer extracted the pesticidal ingredients from the plant and turned it into a spray that people can use in their homes, how do we know what kind of effects it will have on the environment? Yes, the ingredients are all natural, but it was made specifically for the plant and it was fully contained in nature. The toxin could have acidic properties and enzymes that could deteriorate surrounding environments and kill other organisms, not just fire ants. Perhaps there is a reason why the toxin is found to be naturally isolated inside the plant. Although there have been negative opinions towards synthetic pesticides, sometimes man-made pesticides may actually be more beneficial to the environment than their natural counterparts. Scientists are able to manipulate and create different solutions that are directed more specifically to the insect. They can make pesticides that have short decomposition rates so that it does not linger in the environment for very long. They can also make pesticides that are more concentrated so that fewer applications are required to get the job done. “Synthetic” does not mean that it will automatically harm the environment. Synthetic pesticides may also be cheaper to produce and create less waste than extracting natural pesticides from plants. At the start of the debate, my assigned position was the same as my initial stance in the discussion. Upon completion of the debate, I still support my initial opinion that both natural and synthetic pesticides should be used. Although members in the debate group from both sides of the argument had brought up excellent arguments, I believe that the supporting evidence for the use of both synthetic and natural pesticides is much better argued and valid. To summarize the main points in discussion, I’ve learned that ingesting chemicals is unavoidable - either natural or not. Also, organic foods does not seem to be a reliable solution to the use of pesticides. Lastly, synthetic pesticides can be easily manipulated to by safer and more effective than natural pesticides. From the assigned article readings, I had learned that consuming toxins either natural or synthetic is inevitable. About 99.9% of the chemicals we ingest from our daily diet is from naturally occurring chemicals (Ames et al.,1990). It was also mentioned that through comparison of synthetic and natural chemicals, toxicity can be directly related to dosage - meaning that the more toxins you accumulate in your body, the more likely you will be affected by it (Ames et al., 1990). From background knowledge and nutrition courses at the University of Guelph, it is well known that some toxins (fat-soluble) can be stored in our body along with fat. Over a period of time, if the fat isn’t burned off, it will accumulate and so will the toxins. These toxins in small doses can be easily removed if our metabolism is kept up, however if accumulation persists, toxic levels of these chemicals increase. From these facts alone, we can say that it doesn’t matter whether the chemical is made through synthetic or natural means; if these chemicals accumulate in our bodies, it will have a detrimental effect. The use of synthetic pesticides must not be singled out in this relationship. The opposing team had brought up the fact that we should be implementing more organic foods into our systems. Although this would obviously decrease our consumption of applied pesticides, but what about the secondary metabolites that the plant produces itself? From the case study by Hlywka et al. (2010), it was concluded that stressed plants produce much more secondary metabolites to defend itself than if no pesticides were applied to protect it. The levels of secondary metabolites produced became more dangerous to consume compared to the same plant with pesticides applied. Therefore, their argument of increasing organic foods in our diet did not seem to hold up. Both I and a group member agreed upon the fact that synthetic chemicals can be manipulated to be more specific in its use and target certain insects better. Scientists are able to create pesticides that can be more beneficial to the environment like making it water-soluble, so it won’t stay in the environment for very long or perhaps even make the chemical more concentrated so that fewer applications are required to reach the desired results. With natural pesticides, these chemicals were produced by the plant for the defense against itself. There may be effects on the environment that are worse than their synthetic counterpart. In fact, a study performed in 2010 concluded that synthetic pesticides have a lesser impact on the environment and are more effective than natural pesticides (Bahlai et al., 2010). Thus, we’d be ignorant to say that just because the chemical is synthetic, it automatically means that it will be detrimental. To conclude the discussion, my overall opinion of the arguments from the opposing team is that they are generally equating the word “synthetic” as bad. The opposing team did not seem to have solid evidence in favor of their position. They mention malaria and the use of DDT, and the balance of our bodies to fight off foreign chemicals, but none of these points were really supported with case studies and other forms of evidence. They had seem to draw more from their opinions than from actual facts. They argue in favor of either using natural pesticides or none at all (organic foods), yet no solid evidence has been brought up into discussion. Rebuttals against the use of both types of pesticides did not bring up any further evidence or insight into the issue. Therefore, although I gained more insight into the world of using natural and synthetic pesticides, I was not persuaded into changing my original position of the debate - my opinion has only been solidified.

References:
Ames , B.N. , Profet, M. And Gold, L.S. (1990). Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 87:7777-7781.
Ames , B.N. , Profet, M. And Gold, L.S. (1990). Nature’s chemicals and synthetic chemicals: comparative toxicology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 87:7782-7786.
Bahlai, C. A., Yingen, X., McCreary, C.M., Schaafsma, A. W. and Hallett, R. H. (2010). Choosing organic pesticides over synthetic pesticides may not effectively mitigate environmental risk in soybeans. PLoS ONE 5(6): e11250. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.
 0011250
Hlywka, J.J., Stephenson, G.R., Sears, M.K. and Yada, R.Y. (1994). Effects of insect damage of glycoalkaloid content in potatoes (solanum tuberosum). J. Agric. Food chem, 42: 2545-2550
Wink, M. (2010). Secondary metabolites: deterring herbivores. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, 1-9.