What is more important, society or nature? On some level, that is the core of this debate surrounding the most widely used family of pesticides, neonicotinoids. 

Pesticides have long been used in #agriculture since antiquity. Historical records show that Ancient Sumerians used pesticides to prevent pests from harming their crops. From then, all agricultural societies have adopted a form of pesticide to ensure a good harvest, and it has helped civilizations thrive. However, today many are questioning the long-term effects of pesticides and how they can be detrimental to not only pests but to other animals. Thus, two groups have now emerged to discuss the use and hazards of commonly used pesticides to other animals and even to human beings.

One of the compelling arguments of those in favor of the banning of these types of pesticides is the adverse effect it has on the environment. The South Dakota State University has found that neonicotinoids cause harm to small species of animals such as the white-tailed deer. They believe that the unintentional destruction of the local fauna due to pesticides may result in an imbalance that may in turn affect crops in the process, thereby defeating the purpose of the pesticide to begin with. Aside from this, pesticides may also affect people who have prolonged exposure to these chemicals. 

On the other hand, pro-pesticides groups argue that pesticides have long helped farmers with crops and ensured a good harvest. Society needs to maintain an adequate supply of food for its sustainability. The community must immediately resolve any problem that will affect this vital supply chain. Thus, a sacrifice is necessary to ensure the productivity of our farms, or until a new alternative for these pesticides is created.

The question for debate:  In order to protect deer and other small animals, should South Dakota ban neonicotinoid pesticides such as Imidacloprid?