The use of pesticides is widely discussed in different social groups due to the environmental and economic impact the chemicals produce and the ethical considerations of their distribution. Indeed, the case of DDT creation, use, and selling in the previous century displays how the initiative to save lives might turn into an ecological catastrophe by harming innocent animals and the malicious incept (Børsen & Nielsen, 2021). The pesticide was designed to help the military and agricultural industries to regulate the moth spread that carried malaria and destroyed harvests; it proved its effectiveness, yet later was banned by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] (Ghillyer, 2014). However, the manufacturers did not stop producing and selling it to the countries where DDT was not prohibited. This paper aims to explore the ethical considerations of distributing hazardous chemicals in commercial interest by companies such as Montrose Chemical Corporation and discuss if saving human lives is worth the environmental damage.
Montrose Chemical Corporation, located in California, was one of the largest DDT producers in the United States involved in the international distribution of the chemical. The company’s business thrived in the middle of the twentieth century, yet in the 1960s, the pesticide was proven to be toxic for fish and birds and severely influenced the food chain (Ghillyer, 2014). The use of DDT was banned in the United States by EPA, and Montrose Chemical Corporation’s way to survive was to keep producing and selling abroad. The decision violates the foundational ethical standard of nonmaleficence; however, from the autonomy perspective, the buying countries were aware of the EPA’s regulations and the undesirable consequences of pesticides’ utilization. Moreover, Montrose Chemical Corporation went against the environment protection ethics that enabled the businesses to address the need for reducing damage to the planet (Børsen & Nielsen, 2021). Lastly, continuing to manufacture DDT violated the ethical standard of social stability because the citizens’ awareness of the hazardous chemical’s production in California raised serious concerns.
Montrose Chemical Corporation could make several alternative decisions after DDT was prohibited from use in the United States. It is crucial to mention that ETA published no regulations for manufacturers; thus, the company did not break any laws (Børsen & Nielsen, 2021). Therefore, producing and selling pesticides abroad is an ethical violation considering that both the company and the buyers were aware of its damage to nature. The corporation could transfer its factories to the countries where DDT was allowed or change its business towards working on an alternative to hazardous chemicals (Cassar, 2019). Moreover, the company could fund the research to approve or deny the harmful effects of using their product or introduce an environment protection initiative. These actions could be performed regardless of the EPA’s decision regarding DDT use in the United States, as the business had ethical concerns before the regulation’s establishment.
The case of DDT use in the middle of the twentieth century is an argument towards considering the environmental damage at any human initiative to improve or save lives. Killing the moths helped conquer malaria yet had long-term, more severe consequences, such as food chain breaking (Ghillyer, 2014). However, the decision must also be ethically correct at the moment, as prioritizing health addresses the moral principles on which businesses and industries develop their Codes and regulations (Cassar, 2019). The recent COVID-19 pandemic-related decisions also resulted in considerable environmental damage; however, the governments’ and organizations’ solutions to prioritize human lives did not seem inappropriate.
The DDT case and the Montrose Chemical Corporation operations after the EPA’s banning pesticide use revealed the importance of addressing ethical considerations in the situations where environmental damage and human health are involved. Although selling the prohibited chemical abroad could harm the buyers, they knew the consequences and made their autonomic decisions. Alternatively, the corporation could transfer their business, fund the research about the DDTs’ influence on nature, or work on a less harmful substitute. Environmental damage can result in severe long-term consequences for human health and well-being; thus, the ethical risks of addressing the current issues urgently must be evaluated before the decision-making.
References
Børsen, T., & Nielsen, S. N. (2021). Applying an ethical judgment model to the case of DDT. In Ethics of chemistry: From poison gas to climate engineering (pp. 221-247). World Scientific.
Cassar, C. (2019). Business ethics and sustainable development.Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, 139-150.
Ghillyer, A. W. (2014). Business ethics now (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.