4 ms·

Why would anyone believe a "pesticide" would be anything but harmful to almost all insects?

mistrial9 3y ago
in chemical engineering, there is a long and rigorous body of science on toxic and poisonous properties. When a chemical result gets close to a product, things diverge. When the products are profitable in some markets, things diverge even more. All that means to say -- "harmful" is very well studied. The design of the product on the market is not the same. People have blocked or regulated all kinds of new chemical products over centuries.. Product liability is a "third rail" of commerce politics. There are huge incentives to bury publications, news items, science studies and other things, that might bring financial liability to the makers of products on the market. Its a systemic property. Incentives of reward to discover, produce, distribute and market products is also a systemic property. There are multiple serious, moving works of popular science writing that do cross that third rail - Silent Spring by Rachel Carson is often cited.. there are more.
- staplers 3y ago
  "People lie to make money" would have been more concise. Still doesn't address how adults can genuinely believe pesticides wouldn't be harmful to insects.
  - parineum 3y ago
    So, if I can identify one pesticide that doesn't harm all insects, we can answer why an adult could genuinely believe that. Is it your assertion that there are zero pesticides that don't harm all insects?
    - staplers 3y ago
      Depends how you define harm. Does bee extinction harm you?
tredre3 3y ago
People will believe it isn't harmful to all insects because the manufacturer says it's only harmful to specific classes of insects. (Carefully crafted) Studies will confirm that. And the government tacitly endorses the claims (by the EPA approving its sale). What is the customer supposed to do? Doubt everything the manufacturer, scientists, and the government say? Ok, some doubt is healthy. But then then what? Should the customer test the chemical on all classes of insects himself? And what if the effects aren't immediately obvious (as is the case here)? I guess you're arguing for pesticide-free farming here, which is unsustainable for almost all farms.
- JeffSnazz 3y ago
  > But then what? Presumably you could use techniques for discouraging pests we (the public) understand better. You can do this for any class of substance, though this isn't always possible (e.g. good luck replacing cancer medications with something over the counter). We've been farming for thousands of years; it's a little ridiculous to suggest there's no alternative to a chemical developed in the last century. Hell, just off the top of my head you can spray the plants with narrowly-targeted substances that are known to be human safe specifically tested against pollinators (e.g. you might use capsacin to discourage mammal consumption). You could also use natural predators to groom the crops. This is a well-documented and ancient technique, although I'm sure it's much more difficult to scale and has a lot of externalities. I.e. lean into the existing ecological web rather than trying to make our own emaciated one which evidently isn't self sufficient. And maybe we just use too many pesticides—we certainly produce far more food than we consume, even if we're not great at distributing it, perhaps taking some loss in the short term will prevent a catastrophic loss in the long term (I know, literally unimaginable to quarterly-oriented individuals). Ultimately, without some known alternative there's not much you can do aside from calling your representative to complain that we need our agencies to be more skeptical and to mandate making the production process public.
computerdork 3y ago
Agreed. And while the articles focuses on bees, it's important to know that the insect population as a whole have been severely hit over the past two decades (especially flying insects). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations It's shocking and really disturbing how big the decline is, and there is some evidence that this decline at least partially effects other parts of the ecosystem, as freshwater fish populations have great declined too.

in chemical engineering, there is a long and rigorous body of science on toxic and poisonous properties. When a chemical result gets close to a product, things diverge. When the products are profitable in some markets, things diverge even more. All that means to say -- "harmful" is very well studied. The design of the product on the market is not the same. People have blocked or regulated all kinds of new chemical products over centuries.. Product liability is a "third rail" of commerce politics. There are huge incentives to bury publications, news items, science studies and other things, that might bring financial liability to the makers of products on the market. Its a systemic property. Incentives of reward to discover, produce, distribute and market products is also a systemic property. There are multiple serious, moving works of popular science writing that do cross that third rail - Silent Spring by Rachel Carson is often cited.. there are more.

staplers 3y ago
"People lie to make money" would have been more concise. Still doesn't address how adults can genuinely believe pesticides wouldn't be harmful to insects.
- parineum 3y ago
  So, if I can identify one pesticide that doesn't harm all insects, we can answer why an adult could genuinely believe that. Is it your assertion that there are zero pesticides that don't harm all insects?
  - staplers 3y ago
    Depends how you define harm. Does bee extinction harm you?

tredre3 3y ago

People will believe it isn't harmful to all insects because the manufacturer says it's only harmful to specific classes of insects. (Carefully crafted) Studies will confirm that. And the government tacitly endorses the claims (by the EPA approving its sale). What is the customer supposed to do? Doubt everything the manufacturer, scientists, and the government say? Ok, some doubt is healthy. But then then what? Should the customer test the chemical on all classes of insects himself? And what if the effects aren't immediately obvious (as is the case here)? I guess you're arguing for pesticide-free farming here, which is unsustainable for almost all farms.

JeffSnazz 3y ago
> But then what? Presumably you could use techniques for discouraging pests we (the public) understand better. You can do this for any class of substance, though this isn't always possible (e.g. good luck replacing cancer medications with something over the counter). We've been farming for thousands of years; it's a little ridiculous to suggest there's no alternative to a chemical developed in the last century. Hell, just off the top of my head you can spray the plants with narrowly-targeted substances that are known to be human safe specifically tested against pollinators (e.g. you might use capsacin to discourage mammal consumption). You could also use natural predators to groom the crops. This is a well-documented and ancient technique, although I'm sure it's much more difficult to scale and has a lot of externalities. I.e. lean into the existing ecological web rather than trying to make our own emaciated one which evidently isn't self sufficient. And maybe we just use too many pesticides—we certainly produce far more food than we consume, even if we're not great at distributing it, perhaps taking some loss in the short term will prevent a catastrophic loss in the long term (I know, literally unimaginable to quarterly-oriented individuals). Ultimately, without some known alternative there's not much you can do aside from calling your representative to complain that we need our agencies to be more skeptical and to mandate making the production process public.

computerdork 3y ago

Agreed. And while the articles focuses on bees, it's important to know that the insect population as a whole have been severely hit over the past two decades (especially flying insects). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations It's shocking and really disturbing how big the decline is, and there is some evidence that this decline at least partially effects other parts of the ecosystem, as freshwater fish populations have great declined too.