4 ms·

the regulations for pesticide in Oregon is so strict, baby food would fail. Tomatoes and grapes would fail with 10x above level. Some pesticides have no known

by delbel 9y ago

the regulations for pesticide in Oregon is so strict, baby food would fail. Tomatoes and grapes would fail with 10x above level. Some pesticides have no known toxicity or health concerns were straight up banned. The lab companies were able to lobby for sampling rate that ends up taking a huge percentage of the profit. On top of that, they are corrupted, crooked and rumors of taking bribe for failed tests. Even using certified products you can fail. They had to change the approved list to "guide list" so you don't know what to use. Toxic pesticides in baby food is OK in Oregon, but not in the marijuana.

gwern 9y ago
The contrast with tobacco and alcohol (both legal) is ironic. It's also amusing to imagine trying to get something like tea approved under this kind of regulatory regime - fluoride, heavy metals, questions about China pollution, addictive with many known deaths from abuse of the deadly stimulant drug in it (caffeine), unknown potentially synergistic interactions between its psychoactive substances (caffeine+theanine), a risk to dental health, regularly adulterated with other substances, potentially contaminated with coliform or botulinum, and typically consumed in a manner with known health risks and elevated oral cancer classified by IARC as a probable carcinogen (boiling hot water). I wonder how many ordinary things would be de jure or de facto banned these days if they were not grandfathered in.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tomcooks 9y ago
  > known death from abuse of the deadly stimulant drug in it (caffeine) Can you name 1 (one) example of tea (or coffee) induced death?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    It is feasible to brew enough strong tea, and drink it, to cause cardiac arrest in a susceptible individual. It's extremely unlikely someone would do that, and there's probable enough bitters in tea, especially green tea, to cause the average person to vomit before they ingested too much caffeine from tea. But what green wrote is true and correct: https://www.caffeineinformer.com/a-real-life-death-by-caffeine https://www.caffeineinformer.com/a-real-life-death-by-caffei...
    - vidarh 9y ago
      So it seems these were mainly suicides, and it's about as relevant as blaming water for people intentionally drowning themselves. Worth noting that e.g.the doses listed under energy drinks on that page are well within ranges that have been used in various studies of impact of caffeine on athletic ability. If those levels are dangerous to some it seems likely to require a pre-existing heart problem as there seems to be exceedingly little evidence that those levels are risky to the general population. To reach levels toxic to most people with tea you'd likely end up concentrating it so much you'd end up eating a slurry with a spoon...
  - GuB-42 9y ago
    Just Google it. There have been tea related deaths, though not directly related to caffeine and even tea leaves themselves. Caffeine overdose can happen but mostly from pills, you can't drink enough tea to overdose caffeine before overdosing water, which is a real thing btw. I don't like "X caused zero death" arguments. Because if something as common as drinking tea caused zero deaths, it probably means the definition of "causing death" is too narrow. Nothing is perfectly safe. Take tobacco for instance. If you restrict yourself to nicotine overdose, smoking would appear as very safe. The real killer is cancer, and you don't have a direct cause effect relationship. A big increase in probability, sure, but that lung cancer may still have been caused by something else than smoking.
  - red75prime 9y ago
    There are probably no deaths undeniably caused by a cigarette either. Not counting the cases of death in fires caused by smoking, or choking on a cigarette.
- Alex3917 9y ago
  > It's also amusing to imagine trying to get something like tea approved under this kind of regulatory regime A lot of Chinese tea was illegal in the U.S. for the reasons you mention until Clinton repealed the ban in 1996.
code_duck 9y ago
It is a bit of a double standard how in Colorado, cannabis has to list the 'ingredients' used in cultivation - all of the pesticides and herbicides, from neem to nitrogen. Is there any other crop that this is required for? This is very welcome, but I would just love to see an 'ingredient list' for peaches, peppers, corn or wheat at the supermarket.
tree_of_item 9y ago
> The regulations for pesticide in Oregon is so strict, baby food would fail. Tomatoes and grapes would fail with 10x above level. I can't tell if this is hyperbole or not. Would these things actually happen? Are tomatoes and grapes not available for sale or what?
- Lazare 9y ago
  It's not hyperbole (although I can't vouch for its accuracy). What the person you're replying to is saying is that: 1. There are some (fairly standard) food safety regulation in place in Oregon that govern acceptable levels of different toxins in baby food, produce, etc. 2. There are some entirely different and vastly stricter safety regulations in place in Oregon for cannabis. 3. If you tested baby food, tomatoes, and grapes which pass the actual Oregon regulations for baby food, tomatoes, and grapes under the cannabis regulations, they would fail, potentially by an order of magnitude. 4. Which suggests that either Oregon (and basically all other states) have dangerously lax regulations on food and produce, OR that Oregon has ridiculously strict regulations on cannabis.
draw_down 9y ago
Are you suggesting to allow those things in weed, or disallow them in baby food?
outlet 9y ago
I'm the CEO of a cannabis testing lab in Oregon (not mentioned in the article). It's true that pesticide action levels are very low, but the reason is more to do with lack of scientific understanding than corruption or malice. The process was open; essentially the rules committee called around to the environmental labs in town and asked "what's the lowest limit your instruments can theoretically detect," and made that the limit. California is experiencing something similar, with regulators rushing to set rules just to get the market rolling as fast as possible. We're not happy about it, but at the same time we're glad to see legalization proceeding at all. Working in the cannabis industry means largely working without precedent (scientific, legal, and otherwise) which can be equal parts exciting and frustrating. States that wind up legalizing in the coming years will have a lot to learn from Oregon and California. Anecdotally, I can tell you our failure rates for pesticides have fallen dramatically in the last year. We hate to fail product but we believe firmly that the best path towards legitimizing cannabis is being completely transparent and following state regulation to the absolute letter. As a cannabis consumer, that's the industry I want to see.
- fuzzfactor 9y ago
  The most important outcome of decriminalization would seem to me the restoration of the right to grow it yourself as organically as you like, especially in your own home or garden just like any other vegetable or landscape plant. Nobody should lose sight of this objective, any progress is a step in the right direction but momentum must not be lost if the type of freedom that made America great is to be recovered. Too bad your 21st century technologists were so proud of their expensive equipment and low detection levels achieved somewhat through past environmental "concerns" and one-upsmanship that the consensus resulted in regulations too close to the MDL to be more economically feasible for all concerned. In the 20th century when urine became regulated, the newer labs having the lowest MDL's instead deferred to the older operators having earlier generations of equipment and MDL's about 10x as high, in order to respect their desire to continue to stay in business without an unsurmountable capital expenditure. This approach has proven better in 20/20 hindsight. Regardless, pesticides do make possible commercial operations that would otherwise not be feasible, and you can at least wash other types of vegetables before use.

by delbel 9y ago

gwern 9y ago

The contrast with tobacco and alcohol (both legal) is ironic. It's also amusing to imagine trying to get something like tea approved under this kind of regulatory regime - fluoride, heavy metals, questions about China pollution, addictive with many known deaths from abuse of the deadly stimulant drug in it (caffeine), unknown potentially synergistic interactions between its psychoactive substances (caffeine+theanine), a risk to dental health, regularly adulterated with other substances, potentially contaminated with coliform or botulinum, and typically consumed in a manner with known health risks and elevated oral cancer classified by IARC as a probable carcinogen (boiling hot water). I wonder how many ordinary things would be de jure or de facto banned these days if they were not grandfathered in.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tomcooks 9y ago
> known death from abuse of the deadly stimulant drug in it (caffeine) Can you name 1 (one) example of tea (or coffee) induced death?
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  It is feasible to brew enough strong tea, and drink it, to cause cardiac arrest in a susceptible individual. It's extremely unlikely someone would do that, and there's probable enough bitters in tea, especially green tea, to cause the average person to vomit before they ingested too much caffeine from tea. But what green wrote is true and correct: https://www.caffeineinformer.com/a-real-life-death-by-caffeine https://www.caffeineinformer.com/a-real-life-death-by-caffei...
  - vidarh 9y ago
    So it seems these were mainly suicides, and it's about as relevant as blaming water for people intentionally drowning themselves. Worth noting that e.g.the doses listed under energy drinks on that page are well within ranges that have been used in various studies of impact of caffeine on athletic ability. If those levels are dangerous to some it seems likely to require a pre-existing heart problem as there seems to be exceedingly little evidence that those levels are risky to the general population. To reach levels toxic to most people with tea you'd likely end up concentrating it so much you'd end up eating a slurry with a spoon...
- GuB-42 9y ago
  Just Google it. There have been tea related deaths, though not directly related to caffeine and even tea leaves themselves. Caffeine overdose can happen but mostly from pills, you can't drink enough tea to overdose caffeine before overdosing water, which is a real thing btw. I don't like "X caused zero death" arguments. Because if something as common as drinking tea caused zero deaths, it probably means the definition of "causing death" is too narrow. Nothing is perfectly safe. Take tobacco for instance. If you restrict yourself to nicotine overdose, smoking would appear as very safe. The real killer is cancer, and you don't have a direct cause effect relationship. A big increase in probability, sure, but that lung cancer may still have been caused by something else than smoking.
- red75prime 9y ago
  There are probably no deaths undeniably caused by a cigarette either. Not counting the cases of death in fires caused by smoking, or choking on a cigarette.
Alex3917 9y ago
> It's also amusing to imagine trying to get something like tea approved under this kind of regulatory regime A lot of Chinese tea was illegal in the U.S. for the reasons you mention until Clinton repealed the ban in 1996.

code_duck 9y ago

It is a bit of a double standard how in Colorado, cannabis has to list the 'ingredients' used in cultivation - all of the pesticides and herbicides, from neem to nitrogen. Is there any other crop that this is required for? This is very welcome, but I would just love to see an 'ingredient list' for peaches, peppers, corn or wheat at the supermarket.

tree_of_item 9y ago

> The regulations for pesticide in Oregon is so strict, baby food would fail. Tomatoes and grapes would fail with 10x above level. I can't tell if this is hyperbole or not. Would these things actually happen? Are tomatoes and grapes not available for sale or what?

Lazare 9y ago
It's not hyperbole (although I can't vouch for its accuracy). What the person you're replying to is saying is that: 1. There are some (fairly standard) food safety regulation in place in Oregon that govern acceptable levels of different toxins in baby food, produce, etc. 2. There are some entirely different and vastly stricter safety regulations in place in Oregon for cannabis. 3. If you tested baby food, tomatoes, and grapes which pass the actual Oregon regulations for baby food, tomatoes, and grapes under the cannabis regulations, they would fail, potentially by an order of magnitude. 4. Which suggests that either Oregon (and basically all other states) have dangerously lax regulations on food and produce, OR that Oregon has ridiculously strict regulations on cannabis.

draw_down 9y ago

Are you suggesting to allow those things in weed, or disallow them in baby food?

outlet 9y ago

I'm the CEO of a cannabis testing lab in Oregon (not mentioned in the article). It's true that pesticide action levels are very low, but the reason is more to do with lack of scientific understanding than corruption or malice. The process was open; essentially the rules committee called around to the environmental labs in town and asked "what's the lowest limit your instruments can theoretically detect," and made that the limit. California is experiencing something similar, with regulators rushing to set rules just to get the market rolling as fast as possible. We're not happy about it, but at the same time we're glad to see legalization proceeding at all. Working in the cannabis industry means largely working without precedent (scientific, legal, and otherwise) which can be equal parts exciting and frustrating. States that wind up legalizing in the coming years will have a lot to learn from Oregon and California. Anecdotally, I can tell you our failure rates for pesticides have fallen dramatically in the last year. We hate to fail product but we believe firmly that the best path towards legitimizing cannabis is being completely transparent and following state regulation to the absolute letter. As a cannabis consumer, that's the industry I want to see.

fuzzfactor 9y ago
The most important outcome of decriminalization would seem to me the restoration of the right to grow it yourself as organically as you like, especially in your own home or garden just like any other vegetable or landscape plant. Nobody should lose sight of this objective, any progress is a step in the right direction but momentum must not be lost if the type of freedom that made America great is to be recovered. Too bad your 21st century technologists were so proud of their expensive equipment and low detection levels achieved somewhat through past environmental "concerns" and one-upsmanship that the consensus resulted in regulations too close to the MDL to be more economically feasible for all concerned. In the 20th century when urine became regulated, the newer labs having the lowest MDL's instead deferred to the older operators having earlier generations of equipment and MDL's about 10x as high, in order to respect their desire to continue to stay in business without an unsurmountable capital expenditure. This approach has proven better in 20/20 hindsight. Regardless, pesticides do make possible commercial operations that would otherwise not be feasible, and you can at least wash other types of vegetables before use.