Marginalization

After World War II, widespead misuse of chemical pesticides led Rachel Carson to challenge not only their environmental and health impacts, but also the assumption that humans have the right to dominate nature (Rachel Carson Council, n.d.). Carson's book "Silent Spring" triggered a struggle between the supporter and opponents of the widespread use of poisonous chemicals to deinsectization (From Pink to Prevention, 2016).

After Silent Spring was published, secretary of agriculture wrote a letter to president saying that she was "probably a communist" and satirized "why a spinster was so worried about genetics". The media obfuscated her scientific background, criticized the "emotion-fanning words" and pointed out her book was one-sided and overemphatic (Environment & Society Portal, n.d.; Less Cancer, 2017). 

Furthermore, the manufacturer of the pesticides threatened the publisher of Silent Spring with a lawsuit over Carson's claims, attacked Miss Carson as a "hysterical cat-lady", and in the threaten letter, they insinuated that there were "sinister influences" in Carson's books: she might be employed by the Soviet Union and intended to reduce western countries' ability to produce food, to achieve "east-curtain parity" (National Parks Association of NSW, 2017).

Without mentioning Miss Carson's book, the Monsanto Company adopted her lyric style in a parody of "A Fable for Tomorrow" and sent out to newspapers, argued that without pesticides, there would not be able to grow enough food to survive in America (Health and Environment Alliance, n.d.).

In Rachel Carson's 1963 congressional testimony, she argued that widespread pesticide use represents a large-scale and poorly controlled human intervention in nature, its consequences excessively extend to entire ecosystems and ultimately human health (National Parks Association of NSW, 2017; Less Cancer, 2017). She emphasized the chemicals accumulation through food chains, which creating invisible risks, and criticized the tendency to prioritize shor-term economic gains beyond long-term environmental stability.

Carson called for stronger government regulation and a more cautious, ecologically cared approach to scientific and technological development and usage, pointing the importance that humans must recognize the limits of their recognization before the altering natural systems (From Pink to Prevention, 2016).

In the 1970s, the United States began establishing a formal regulatory for environmental protection in response to increasing scientific evidence and public concern highlighted by people like Rachel Carson. The creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) centralized authority over environmental regulation (From Pink to Prevention, 2016).

In addition, the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (FEPCA) of 1972 adjusted the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), requiring manufactures to submit test data for new registrations and pesticides to be evaluated for both safety and effectiveness before approval (Center for Food Safety, n.d.).

These regulations marked a shift from reactive response to proactive regulation in environmental and human health protection.