5 ms·

> But when chemicals so awful they kill the crop, the crop’s genes need to be modified so that they don’t die and that chemical residue ends up all over our foo

> But when chemicals so awful they kill the crop, the crop’s genes need to be modified so that they don’t die and that chemical residue ends up all over our food system Fortunately, you are not a plant. These chemicals just need to not harm humans (and domestic animals). The fact that they did, in this case, is merely a safety failure. There is nothing which says that pesticides and herbicides must be harmful to humans, and if these judgments are big enough, hopefully in the future there will be sufficient motivation to ensure that they won't be.

LordShredda 3y ago
Although we have seen very frequently that pesticides still affect some humans or animals. At this point, shouldn't we just reduce the possible points of failures instead of hoping the next miracle molecule doesn't kill us all twenty years later?
- echelon 3y ago
  Very frequently? These chemicals are benign and the media and activists have been scaring people for decades without justification. The fact that their arguments are often convolved with arguments against lawns and lawncare should give you a better sense of their true motives. I'm shocked Bayer lost and that the plaintiff was awarded anything. Glyphosate has not been shown to cause cancer. If it had, such literature would be paraded out as an evergreen example. If you want to be afraid of chemical use, it's the overuse of antibiotics that should worry you. Or the high particulate air you're breathing in.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    > These chemicals are benign Sure they are.
  - unihd2kno 3y ago
    > it's the overuse of antibiotics that should worry you If violence doesn't work, you are not using enough violence.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    Roundup isn’t glyphosate. It’s full of glyphosate, yes. But it’s not glyphosate. It also doesn’t always break down. Depends on if it binds with anything.
    - tanseydavid 3y ago
      Seems like a distinction without a difference: "Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide and crop desiccant. It is used to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses that compete with crops. Its herbicidal effectiveness was discovered by Monsanto chemist John E. Franz in 1970. Monsanto brought it to market for agricultural use in 1974 under the trade name Roundup." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
      - BenjiWiebe 3y ago
        I think what they are meaning is that the chemical blend with glyphosate causes cancer even if pure glyphosate doesn't. I.e. an inactive ingredient or an interaction with an inactive ingredient is what causes the cancer.
      - hinkley 3y ago
        It’s a distinction without a difference if you’re trying to reuse the tobacco playbook and you need people to be confused long enough for your bonus checks to clear.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Although we have seen very frequently that pesticides still affect some humans or animals. “Pesticides” is a class that includes things intended affect animals (insecticides and rodenticides, for instance.) > At this point, shouldn't we just reduce the possible points of failures instead of hoping the next miracle molecule doesn't kill us all twenty years later? Probably not. We should probably improve our structures for evaluating, approving, and reevaluating once deployed agricultural chemicals of all types, but should we stop developing new technology in the field? No, we probably should not.
steve_adams_86 3y ago
I’m not a plant, but I’m loaded with tiny creatures that appear to support my overall health yet are hindered by stuff we put on plants. I have no interest in harming them without a clear need to, and studies show that exposure to pesticides can significantly impact gut flora either by outright killing them or causing significant imbalances. This matters, and I’d consider it a reason at least some pesticides are harmful to humans, even if indirectly.
- XorNot 3y ago
  This is a very different (but important) point to the one the OP was making though, which was freely playing with the "it'll totally kill you" imagery in the wording. People complain when "the other side" is loose with the truth, then freely do it themselves when it suits.
refurb 3y ago
The lack of basic scientific literacy is pretty shocking in the "organic is healthier" world. It's a virtue smorgasbord of "natural fallacy" and "don't eat chemicals" logic.

LordShredda 3y ago

Although we have seen very frequently that pesticides still affect some humans or animals. At this point, shouldn't we just reduce the possible points of failures instead of hoping the next miracle molecule doesn't kill us all twenty years later?

echelon 3y ago
Very frequently? These chemicals are benign and the media and activists have been scaring people for decades without justification. The fact that their arguments are often convolved with arguments against lawns and lawncare should give you a better sense of their true motives. I'm shocked Bayer lost and that the plaintiff was awarded anything. Glyphosate has not been shown to cause cancer. If it had, such literature would be paraded out as an evergreen example. If you want to be afraid of chemical use, it's the overuse of antibiotics that should worry you. Or the high particulate air you're breathing in.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  > These chemicals are benign Sure they are.
- unihd2kno 3y ago
  > it's the overuse of antibiotics that should worry you If violence doesn't work, you are not using enough violence.
- hinkley 3y ago
  Roundup isn’t glyphosate. It’s full of glyphosate, yes. But it’s not glyphosate. It also doesn’t always break down. Depends on if it binds with anything.
  - tanseydavid 3y ago
    Seems like a distinction without a difference: "Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide and crop desiccant. It is used to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses that compete with crops. Its herbicidal effectiveness was discovered by Monsanto chemist John E. Franz in 1970. Monsanto brought it to market for agricultural use in 1974 under the trade name Roundup." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
    - BenjiWiebe 3y ago
      I think what they are meaning is that the chemical blend with glyphosate causes cancer even if pure glyphosate doesn't. I.e. an inactive ingredient or an interaction with an inactive ingredient is what causes the cancer.
    - hinkley 3y ago
      It’s a distinction without a difference if you’re trying to reuse the tobacco playbook and you need people to be confused long enough for your bonus checks to clear.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Although we have seen very frequently that pesticides still affect some humans or animals. “Pesticides” is a class that includes things intended affect animals (insecticides and rodenticides, for instance.) > At this point, shouldn't we just reduce the possible points of failures instead of hoping the next miracle molecule doesn't kill us all twenty years later? Probably not. We should probably improve our structures for evaluating, approving, and reevaluating once deployed agricultural chemicals of all types, but should we stop developing new technology in the field? No, we probably should not.

steve_adams_86 3y ago

I’m not a plant, but I’m loaded with tiny creatures that appear to support my overall health yet are hindered by stuff we put on plants. I have no interest in harming them without a clear need to, and studies show that exposure to pesticides can significantly impact gut flora either by outright killing them or causing significant imbalances. This matters, and I’d consider it a reason at least some pesticides are harmful to humans, even if indirectly.

XorNot 3y ago
This is a very different (but important) point to the one the OP was making though, which was freely playing with the "it'll totally kill you" imagery in the wording. People complain when "the other side" is loose with the truth, then freely do it themselves when it suits.

refurb 3y ago

The lack of basic scientific literacy is pretty shocking in the "organic is healthier" world. It's a virtue smorgasbord of "natural fallacy" and "don't eat chemicals" logic.