3 ms·

"Chemicals killing the crop" aren't inherently dangerous to your body, that's just chemophobia. Best quality artisanal chocolate can easily kill your cat. Nico

"Chemicals killing the crop" aren't inherently dangerous to your body, that's just chemophobia. Best quality artisanal chocolate can easily kill your cat. Nicotine kills bugs and is benign in humans. Belladonna would kill you, but a goat can munch on it without much trouble. Lots of stuff is lethal to some species and harmless to others, "this chemical is so bad it kills plants" is as rational as "chocolate is so bad it kills cats".

bigbillheck 3y ago
> Nicotine ... benign in humans Not 100% sure I agree with that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning
edgyquant 3y ago
>chemophobia How ridiculous. You should be afraid of chemicals you don’t understand. That’s common sense
lightedman 3y ago
"Nicotine kills bugs and is benign in humans." One drop of nicotine put under your tongue will kill you deader than a doornail.
dade_ 3y ago
[flagged]
- dgroshev 3y ago
  No, I'm not saying that, how can you read my reply that way in good faith? I didn't say anything about Hersheys either.
  - dade_ 3y ago
    Chemophobia - it annoys me that people think that the only harm we must consider for herbicides and pesticides is humans, then proceeded to dump billions of gallons of this, which ultimately end up down rivers, lakes, and oceans. there are countless creatures being affected by the chemicals, but somehow we skip that study. You brought up chocolate. Hersheys arguably is chocolate and the Consumer Reports study is actually about dark chocolate, and all the amazing chemicals in it.
    - dgroshev 3y ago
      Who are those people? Regulators look at harm to other animals as well, and the fate of the herbicide is one of the most important considerations. Glyphosate in particular effectively binds to soil [1] and is biodegraded there by various bacteria fairly rapidly. The fact that you are talking about "chemicals" in this generic way is what makes it chemophobia. There can be no serious point in talking about "chemicals" that can't even be defined, it's always irrational. [1] https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_025810.pdf https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_02581...
      - dade_ 3y ago
        I don’t have a fear of chemicals. Everything is a chemical, but I’ve met the people you are describing, I promise to never use the work again. Keep in mind these studies are from 1997, the world wasn’t even ruined by the Internet at that point. The studies about humans described in your link are: some idiot drank half a cup of it, and he didn’t die, and the rabbits and mice seem ok. It’s safe! I just struggle, because even at that time these types of anecdotal statements were so dubious. It’s now over 25 years later, so what are the long-term effect? As a point of comparison, Johnson and Johnson continues to insist that their asbestos laced baby powder doesn’t cause cancer (contradicting reality), so Monsanto now Bayer assurances don’t generate much confidence for me.
- XorNot 3y ago
  Whether something kills humans, and whether it kills fish are two entirely different questions. For example: the medium fish live in has a 100% kill rate on humans submerged in it for longer then about 5 minutes.
sharts 3y ago
And yet, eating food that has spoiled contains chemicals that are inherently dangerous to your body causing food-poisoning. That people would prefer NOT to believe those with vested interest in profiting from selling things exposed to chemicals isn't an invalid concern.
- dgroshev 3y ago
  What spoiled food has to do with it? If anything, it's a tautology, because "spoiled" effectively means "bad", when the process of "spoiling" is harmless we call it "blue cheese" or "kimchi". "Things exposed to chemicals" is literally anything you see around you. Water is a "chemical". Glucose is a "chemical". Vitamin C is a "chemical". I don't understand your point.
- oooyay 3y ago
  Food poisoning is caused by viruses and bacteria. As another poster pointed out, a lot of GMO crops are altered in such a way that they don't need as many pesticides. Non-GMO often need more pesticides and the GMO label has nothing to do with pesticides - just genetic modification. If you don't trust me, just ask the FDA: https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/why-do-farmers-us-grow-gmo-crops https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/why-do-f...
  - bigbillheck 3y ago
    > Food poisoning is caused by viruses and bacteria. I've got plenty of E.coli in my gut already, the risk in food poisoning is not that I'll get a few more, it's that I'll get a few more that also produce shigatoxin.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    Discussing GMO's in general and not specific varieties is about as productive as discussing manmade materials- the topic is too broad. What are we even comparing- bricks vs stones? Copper vs a rock? Monsanto was producing crops that better withstand it's chemicals and China is producing Rice that can tolerate salt water. Clearly China is Innovating to feed it's people while Monsanto is 'Innovating' to boost their share price.
dontwearitout 3y ago
But it's naive to think there's no effect - some level of chemophobia is warranted IMO, because we do not understand all the complex second order effects to these powerful compounds. Case in point: the article we're discussing. I firmly believe science will illuminate the true risks, but it may unfortunately take decades. Time will tell, until then I try to eat organic when I can.
Madmallard 3y ago
Imagine thinking we have a solid enough grasp of these chemicals and their interactions and likely potentiating effects with other compounds for literally hundreds of thousands of chemicals in regular industrial use for which no one alive today evolved to tolerate. The incidence of bizarre illnesses, cancer, neuroatypicality, hormonal disturbances, and so many other illnesses is exploding in incidence across the modern world. Taking a “that’s just chemophobic” stand is honestly really stupid.

bigbillheck 3y ago

> Nicotine ... benign in humans Not 100% sure I agree with that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning

edgyquant 3y ago

>chemophobia How ridiculous. You should be afraid of chemicals you don’t understand. That’s common sense

lightedman 3y ago

"Nicotine kills bugs and is benign in humans." One drop of nicotine put under your tongue will kill you deader than a doornail.

dade_ 3y ago

[flagged]

dgroshev 3y ago
No, I'm not saying that, how can you read my reply that way in good faith? I didn't say anything about Hersheys either.
- dade_ 3y ago
  Chemophobia - it annoys me that people think that the only harm we must consider for herbicides and pesticides is humans, then proceeded to dump billions of gallons of this, which ultimately end up down rivers, lakes, and oceans. there are countless creatures being affected by the chemicals, but somehow we skip that study. You brought up chocolate. Hersheys arguably is chocolate and the Consumer Reports study is actually about dark chocolate, and all the amazing chemicals in it.
  - dgroshev 3y ago
    Who are those people? Regulators look at harm to other animals as well, and the fate of the herbicide is one of the most important considerations. Glyphosate in particular effectively binds to soil [1] and is biodegraded there by various bacteria fairly rapidly. The fact that you are talking about "chemicals" in this generic way is what makes it chemophobia. There can be no serious point in talking about "chemicals" that can't even be defined, it's always irrational. [1] https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_025810.pdf https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_02581...
    - dade_ 3y ago
      I don’t have a fear of chemicals. Everything is a chemical, but I’ve met the people you are describing, I promise to never use the work again. Keep in mind these studies are from 1997, the world wasn’t even ruined by the Internet at that point. The studies about humans described in your link are: some idiot drank half a cup of it, and he didn’t die, and the rabbits and mice seem ok. It’s safe! I just struggle, because even at that time these types of anecdotal statements were so dubious. It’s now over 25 years later, so what are the long-term effect? As a point of comparison, Johnson and Johnson continues to insist that their asbestos laced baby powder doesn’t cause cancer (contradicting reality), so Monsanto now Bayer assurances don’t generate much confidence for me.
XorNot 3y ago
Whether something kills humans, and whether it kills fish are two entirely different questions. For example: the medium fish live in has a 100% kill rate on humans submerged in it for longer then about 5 minutes.

sharts 3y ago

And yet, eating food that has spoiled contains chemicals that are inherently dangerous to your body causing food-poisoning. That people would prefer NOT to believe those with vested interest in profiting from selling things exposed to chemicals isn't an invalid concern.

dgroshev 3y ago
What spoiled food has to do with it? If anything, it's a tautology, because "spoiled" effectively means "bad", when the process of "spoiling" is harmless we call it "blue cheese" or "kimchi". "Things exposed to chemicals" is literally anything you see around you. Water is a "chemical". Glucose is a "chemical". Vitamin C is a "chemical". I don't understand your point.
oooyay 3y ago
Food poisoning is caused by viruses and bacteria. As another poster pointed out, a lot of GMO crops are altered in such a way that they don't need as many pesticides. Non-GMO often need more pesticides and the GMO label has nothing to do with pesticides - just genetic modification. If you don't trust me, just ask the FDA: https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/why-do-farmers-us-grow-gmo-crops https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/why-do-f...
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  > Food poisoning is caused by viruses and bacteria. I've got plenty of E.coli in my gut already, the risk in food poisoning is not that I'll get a few more, it's that I'll get a few more that also produce shigatoxin.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  Discussing GMO's in general and not specific varieties is about as productive as discussing manmade materials- the topic is too broad. What are we even comparing- bricks vs stones? Copper vs a rock? Monsanto was producing crops that better withstand it's chemicals and China is producing Rice that can tolerate salt water. Clearly China is Innovating to feed it's people while Monsanto is 'Innovating' to boost their share price.

dontwearitout 3y ago

But it's naive to think there's no effect - some level of chemophobia is warranted IMO, because we do not understand all the complex second order effects to these powerful compounds. Case in point: the article we're discussing. I firmly believe science will illuminate the true risks, but it may unfortunately take decades. Time will tell, until then I try to eat organic when I can.

Madmallard 3y ago

Imagine thinking we have a solid enough grasp of these chemicals and their interactions and likely potentiating effects with other compounds for literally hundreds of thousands of chemicals in regular industrial use for which no one alive today evolved to tolerate. The incidence of bizarre illnesses, cancer, neuroatypicality, hormonal disturbances, and so many other illnesses is exploding in incidence across the modern world. Taking a “that’s just chemophobic” stand is honestly really stupid.