“The relationship between human health and the environment is complex, dynamic, and multifaceted,” frequently dabbling in politics and ethics. The emergence of innovative and “evolving technologies,” including pesticides, genetically modified organisms, and biofuels have severe repercussions on the environment, its delicate ecosystems and human society. Pesticides, one one hand, pose serious risks (in extreme cases even fatal) to human health and to an environment surrounding wildlife and fauna, however, on the other hand, their purpose of increasing crop yields lowers food prices and increases overall food availability. Banning or severely restricting the use of pesticides would lead to food shortages that increase “starvation, malnutrition, and food insecurity,” disproportionately affecting lower income families and drawing up ethical questions between environment and equity regarding solutions. A common trend is revealed, socioeconomic inequalities are often “related to proximity to environmental hazards (such as waste sites, landfills, and sewage treatment plants) and inequalities related to environmental risks arising from exposures to environmental hazards such as pollution, lead, pesticides, and industrial chemicals.”

Where other articles hinted at, this piece directly highlights the ethical, political, and social dilemmas that arise not only from environmental problems itself, but also the obstacles that varying solutions produce. I think this article’s emphasis on an underrepresented yet crucial element of environmental justice allows a fuller, more “3D” view into tackling ecological crises in order to obtain, as the author states, a “fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens.” Thus, relating to environmental science by illuminating human interactions with nature.