Utilitarianism: Its a Dog-Eat-Dog world out there?

When is utilitarianism not right?

Everyday millions of people are exposed to dangerous, toxic pesticides. Trying to provide for their families, in turn leads most people to bodily harm. I cannot wrap my head around utilitarianism and better yet why we accept it as a reason to continue living our lives because it does not directly affect us. It is so simple to just say, "Well, someone has to do it!” But at the cost of what?

 In the reading, Bell talks about the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number?" This means that if the richest parts of the world want the best foods [organic, pesticide free] than they get it in surplus only because they can afford it and those who cannot afford it are left with the worst of foods [processed, unhealthy]. I disagree with all of this. Yes, I understand that with their being inequality in the world I get to move on with my life, but at the same time I feel that there can be ways to decrease the amount of inequality in the world. It takes a lot to change what people are already used to but if changing can produce greater happiness for the greater good than why can we not do this? Why? Because of the use of utilitarianism. As Bell but it, if the world wants to be generally happy than "sometimes the minority [poor, working with pesticides] must accept an unpleasant sacrifice to benefit the majority [rich, getting all the goods]." I believe that it is just easier for people to just put aside all of the problems of utilitarianism and just let others deal with ugly in order for them to get the pretty.