3 ms·
> You’d have to prove intent to call it violence. Are we supposed to believe no one involved in selling this massive amount of rice knows what we learned in 20
by mandmandam 3y ago
> You’d have to prove intent to call it violence.
Are we supposed to believe no one involved in selling this massive amount of rice knows what we learned in 2007 [0] ?!
> At one point during the reign of King Cotton, farmers in the south central United States controlled boll weevils with arsenic-based pesticides, and residual arsenic still contaminates the soil. Today, rice paddies cover fields where cotton once grew, and a large market basket survey published in the 1 April 2007 issue of Environmental Science & Technology now shows that rice grown in this area contains, on average, 1.76 times more arsenic than rice grown in California.
'Negligence' is not the word for this. It's violence, and it's inexcusable.
0 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892142/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892142/
- krapht 3y agothe way rice is cooked can reduce arsenic levels by 80%. we don't need to completely forbid rice production in the southern US
- nonethewiser 3y agoYour own sources show its not violence. Again, you would need to show intent to harm. But instead the intent was to increase yields by eliminating pests.