Banning pesticides is described as a public health measure with which of the following impacts?

• A. It has no impact on public health.
• B. It has negative economic impact but positive public health results.
• C. It improved industry profits.
• D. It worsened public health outcomes.

Answer: (B)

Banning pesticides primarily aims to cut people’s exposure to toxic chemicals, which lowers health risks for farmworkers and communities and can reduce incidents of acute poisoning as well as long-term conditions linked to pesticide exposure. Those health benefits are the public health gains expected from such a policy, including fewer health care costs and better overall well-being in populations affected by agricultural chemicals.

At the same time, removing pesticides often means higher costs and more effort to manage pests—farmers may need to switch to safer but more expensive alternatives, adopt new farming practices, or potentially face changes in crop yields. These economic and productivity-related trade-offs reflect negative economic impacts that commonly accompany a pesticide ban.

So, the description that best fits describes positive public health results alongside a negative economic impact: health improvements without proportional economic benefits. The other options either ignore these health effects, imply only economic gains, or suggest worse health outcomes, which doesn’t align with how banning harmful pesticides typically shifts both health and economic factors.