3 ms·

Better than the US standard of letting untested genes or chemicals loose on the population and testing/regulating only when a problem starts popping up, no?

• krona 10y ago
  It depends. For instance, the precautionary principle in the EU has, in the case of declining bee populations, manifested itself in banning things even when the scientific studies have shown that the pesticides in question are almost certainly not the problem. How many scientific studies does it take to convince a politician?
  • whyenot 10y ago
    When the crop is wind pollinated as is the case with wheat and other grasses, AND when there are closely related weeds and other plants nearby, a little caution seems like a good thing. As far as neonicotinamides, they are a very useful group of pesticides. Safe for applicators, effective, long lasting. I use them quite often to control pests in the university greenhouses I manage. I think the jury is still out on their role in bee colony collapses. Even if they are not implicated, there is a lot of evidence that they do kill insect pollinators
  • RobertoG 10y ago
    Another, more cynic, way to see it is, you can choose one of two possibilities: -You can have politicians that try to appeal ill-informed general population motivated by fear. We would call this, the European way. -You can have politicians that try to appeal well informed lobbyist motivated by greed. We will call this the American Way. Or, the even more cynical, and probably more realistic option, you can have both: politicians that try to eat their cake and have it too.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]