Sample Essay On Political Letter: Assessment Of The Response

The political letter was sent to Canada's Minister of Health but it was answered by the Executive Director of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada, Richard Aucoin. While the response definitely came from PMRA's Executive Office, there is no guarantee that the response was personally written by the Director himself. Their office most likely receives many inquiries regarding pest-related issues, so it is possible that there is a dedicated team that handles the correspondence. Nevertheless, the document was signed by Director Aucoin, so he must have at least seen or read the reply (if not actually penning the letter himself).
The issue of pesticides' effects on non-target and beneficial species such as pollinators is a well-known topic, so receiving a somewhat generic response would not have been quite surprising. However, the reply letter was actually tailored to the content of the original political letter and addressed its major points. For example, it was mentioned in the original letter that bees are exposed to neonicotinoid pesticides through particles released during planting of treated seeds. The response letter contained extensive details about the current evidence regarding this event. There was also a link to an upated report highlighting the key findings of pesticide use on bee health. The response letter also provided details of what measures Canada has been or will undertake in light of the non-target effects of pesticide use.
In the original letter, it was suggested that the use of neonicotinoid pesticide be restricted until ways of eliminating the adverse effects against non-target organisms are determined through further studies. While the response did not actually rebut the argument that pesticides negatively affect pollinators, it did not exactly state that restricting pesticide use would be the best course of action. There are many stakeholders involved in this issue and regulatory bodies exist precisely to achieve middle ground. Instead of an outright restriction or ban, measures have been implemented to reduce exposure of pollinators to pesticide, pending results of an investigative study. Probably in an effort to appease discontent from this decision that is somewhat reminiscent of the “innocent until proven guilty” principle of the judicial system, the response happily reported that adverse effects are 70% lower than prior to the implementation of the measures for reduced pollinator exposure.
The response continues on to state which actions have been taken and are underway towards regulation of pesticides. It was stated that PMRA actively participates in national and global initiatives for pollinator health. Investments have been made by federal and provincial governments for research aimed to better understand and determine how to maintain healthy bee populations. Specific examples of these investments were also given. There has been increased funding for research "geared towards optimizing the profitability of honeybee colonies and maintaining healthy bee populations." There was also a proposed four-year surveillance project that aims to "record the nature, extent and prevalence of diseases, pest organisms and chemical residues in Canadian honey bee colonies" on a national scale.
Overall it is great that government offices actually take time to read and respond to letters from concerned citizens. Even though the letter was originally addressed to the Ministry of Health, I believe it was appropriate that it was forwarded to a regulatory body that was better equipped to respond to the letter. After reading the response, I feel reassured that the PMRA utilizes a scientific approach and that their decision-making process is supported by scientific data, extensive research, and facts. Finally, it is enlightening that this issue is not being taken lightly and that the Canadian government is actively dedicating resources to address this topic.