4 ms·

This assumes that all pesticides have the same effects at the same dosages in humans, which would be surprising if true. Sure, the more potent the pesticide, t

This assumes that all pesticides have the same effects at the same dosages in humans, which would be surprising if true. Sure, the more potent the pesticide, the less growers need to use, and the less residual pesticide ends up ingested by people. But it's impossible to say anything about the relative harm of a small residual amount of potent pesticide versus a larger residual amount of less potent (and chemically different) pesticide.

derefr 7y ago
> This assumes that all pesticides have the same effects at the same dosages in humans Nah, my assumption was that the level of harm scales with the power of the pesticide in humans just as it does in, well, pests. (It's not true, but it's an interesting model to study.) If we assume that relationship, it should imply that, if your vegetables were never washed once from the farm to your mouth, you'd be getting equivalent levels of harm from more- and less-powerful pesticides, since the amount of them sprayed on the vegetable would be in inverse proportion to their toxicity. However, once you introduce washing, the amount of the pesticide you remove isn't constant, nor linear. In fact, some pesticides are non-"organic" precisely because they have chemicals in them that make them more easily washed off! So the better-engineered (less "natural") pesticides are both originally present in smaller quantities, and reduced in quantity more by washing. You might end up eating none of a synthetic pesticide, whereas an "organic" one might be all over your food even after washing. "None" is very different from even a little. (Further, there are synthetic pesticides that are entirely safe for humans—or are even considered food by humans—but which are considered non-"organic" because we can only create them via de novo synthesis rather than in a bioreactor. Consider some artificial sugar that the human liver can process but insects cannot metabolize. If we sprayed it on plants, it'd be a "synthetic pesticide." If "synthetic pesticide" looks like that, and "organic pesticide" looks like, say, nicotine, which would you prefer to miss some residue of?)
- EForEndeavour 7y ago
  > my assumption was that the level of harm scales with the power of the pesticide in humans just as it does in, well, pests. This is a highly questionable assumption that you'll need to support or abandon. It's as important as your later points about washing. For example, caffeine acts as a natural pesticide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Natural_occurrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Natural_occurrence). It kills insects, but humans collectively consume 10 million tons per year. As another example, diatomaceous earth kills pretty much anything with an exoskeleton through a physical mechanism, but is completely non-toxic to mammals (prolonged breathing is not a good idea, though). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomaceous_earth#Pest_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomaceous_earth#Pest_contro...) It is convenient but erroneous to assume that all pesticides affect humans and pests equally.

derefr 7y ago

> This assumes that all pesticides have the same effects at the same dosages in humans Nah, my assumption was that the level of harm scales with the power of the pesticide in humans just as it does in, well, pests. (It's not true, but it's an interesting model to study.) If we assume that relationship, it should imply that, if your vegetables were never washed once from the farm to your mouth, you'd be getting equivalent levels of harm from more- and less-powerful pesticides, since the amount of them sprayed on the vegetable would be in inverse proportion to their toxicity. However, once you introduce washing, the amount of the pesticide you remove isn't constant, nor linear. In fact, some pesticides are non-"organic" precisely because they have chemicals in them that make them more easily washed off! So the better-engineered (less "natural") pesticides are both originally present in smaller quantities, and reduced in quantity more by washing. You might end up eating none of a synthetic pesticide, whereas an "organic" one might be all over your food even after washing. "None" is very different from even a little. (Further, there are synthetic pesticides that are entirely safe for humans—or are even considered food by humans—but which are considered non-"organic" because we can only create them via de novo synthesis rather than in a bioreactor. Consider some artificial sugar that the human liver can process but insects cannot metabolize. If we sprayed it on plants, it'd be a "synthetic pesticide." If "synthetic pesticide" looks like that, and "organic pesticide" looks like, say, nicotine, which would you prefer to miss some residue of?)

EForEndeavour 7y ago
> my assumption was that the level of harm scales with the power of the pesticide in humans just as it does in, well, pests. This is a highly questionable assumption that you'll need to support or abandon. It's as important as your later points about washing. For example, caffeine acts as a natural pesticide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Natural_occurrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Natural_occurrence). It kills insects, but humans collectively consume 10 million tons per year. As another example, diatomaceous earth kills pretty much anything with an exoskeleton through a physical mechanism, but is completely non-toxic to mammals (prolonged breathing is not a good idea, though). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomaceous_earth#Pest_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomaceous_earth#Pest_contro...) It is convenient but erroneous to assume that all pesticides affect humans and pests equally.