3 ms·

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

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.

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.