You know what I hate about this? In the past, you could very easily vote with your wallet by spending it on organic food, instead of this poison laden crap.
But these days, food is so expensive that very few have that option, so we pay a premium to these companies who really don’t give a damn about us, the planet, or biodiversity.
You know what I hate about this? Somewhere someone is getting paid to allow the ag industry to slide on requirements, with the end result of people being poisoned. And we have zero say or representation.
The only say we have anymore is to do something about it.
Then they call those people eco-terrorists.
Well in the land of the fee, you might have about 50 000 say in total to be divided up to what you need (a bunch of that going straight to your landlord or mortgage company anyway), while big agriculture firms have 10 000 000s of say dedicated to the policy initiatives they want.
That’s a really long way to call me poor 😂
Well done. 👏
It seems like you can still vote with your wallet. It just takes harder voting.
…instead of this poison laden crap.
The dose makes the poison. They’re taking a science-based process to update the maximum residue limit.
…don’t give a damn about us, the planet, or biodiversity.
Significantly more land would have to be allocated to agriculture to produce the same amount of food without pesticides. That’s not good for the planet or biodiversity.
Yeah but what if by increasing its usage, it means that you get more into the underground water supply and you end up with elevated concentration in drinking water because of this?
If it’s dangerous then obviously stop doing it. But use science to test your hypothesis
It is pretty well understood at this point that a significant portion of pesticide runs off into our environment. It is reasonable to assume that an increase in usage will increase runoff and therefore increase risks of contamination.
Don’t assume, test the hypothesis. Why are you so against using the scientific method?
I’m honestly pretty shocked at how anti science this thread is. Wanting proof that something is safe or unsafe shouldn’t be a controversial position.
Bro we’re not going to run off into a field with equipment and test this ourselves.
There has been many studies on the subject, done by scientists, with reports, that have been published. Some of which have been reported in the news and that also influenced Europe into taking the decision to stop using glyphosate and to reduce the usage of pesticides in general.
I’ve read many news articles on the subject over time and I know enough to know that we need to decrease our usage and use natural alternatives where possible because it has long term effects on our environment affecting drinking water, pollination insects such as bees, and can cause cancer in humans and animals.
Stop telling people to use the scientific method and science like we’re going to go out there and run experiments on our own like we have time to do that in our busy lives and we’re all environmental or chemical scientists. We’re not. We keep ourselves informed through the reports that have already been published as journalists who investigate into these things.
Why are you so pro pesticides? It’s not rocket surgery to connect these chemicals to various health and ecological issues today, some of which can take years to underatand/surface. This is clearly legislation designed for profits over human and environmental health. It is well documented and reaearched that many pesticides have serious health hazards, its kind of part of their job. “Science based apporach” is the media/governments term asking you not to question their decisions.
I’m not pro pesticides. I’m pro environment and this is a complex situation where we should use systems thinking. Pesticides increase crop yields which means less land needs to be used for agriculture. Less land used for agriculture means less deforestation which mitigates climate change. There is obviously a balance here, too many pesticides will have negative affects on the local environment and humans but too few pesticides will also have negative affects on the environment (and by proxy humans). Determining an accurate safe maximum residue limit helps farmers safely maximize crop yields. The dose makes the poison is the basic principle of toxicology. These limits aren’t being determined by politicians or companies, they’re being determined by Health Canada. It is difficult to be a corrupt scientist in Health Canada so I don’t believe the scientists involved in this system will have perverse incentives. I’m not pro pesticides, I’m pro environment.
When Syngenta is involved, I’m extremely skeptical that the process is scientific or rather that the variables optimized for are people’s or the environment’s health. The dose isn’t an on/off switch, it isn’t boolean. Given Syngenta’s track record, I’m guessing that they’re optimizing for how much they can sell before the damage is apparent to most. I do believe they’re scientifically establishing these amounts.
Stop saying “science-based process,” Greg.
“Safe Food Matters president Mary Lou McDonald agreed. Accessing the health and safety data the PMRA uses to determine MRLs is challenging due to stringent limits on what data can be seen — and shared — by the public to protect pesticide companies’ intellectual property. She noted issues with the accuracy and relevance of the data used by the government in its assessment process.
Moreover, she noted the PMRA and pesticide manufacturers have a close working relationship — an issue also flagged by Lanphear.“
The term “science-based process” is directly from the “Government of Canada moves forward on commitments to strengthen the pesticide review process” press release. I don’t believe in anti-science conspiracy theories. If there are issues with the data being used to make these decisions then that should be addressed but there is no evidence of that. You quoted the opinion of a trained lawyer from an anti pesticide charity, not a scientist.
I understand to a degree allowing an increase in pesticide use (though that’ll seriously impact the water quality due to runoff), the only thing that the industry needs to do to reduce pesticide residue is to just spray the produce with water.
It’s just a way to cheapen out the process at the expense of people’s health. And I don’t just mean the end shoppers’, but also all the industry workers along the way. While I imagine the amount isn’t a lot, but an increase in pesticide residue that makes it all the way through the supply chain increases how much the workers are exposed to as they handle the produce.
That’s a very good point. Wasn’t there a study somewhere that found out that there were levels beyond what’s accepted in mothers’ breast milk of the pesticide called Roundup? And the reason was that the water supply was completely contaminated?
I seem to recall something like that.
Frankly speaking, I don’t think there’s any actively used pesticide that is particularly fine to ingest on a regular basis, even at extremely low levels. That stuff circulates throughout your entire body, and is particularly harmful to both fetuses and breastfeeding infants. And I imagine that pregnant/breastfeeding women are the group that is most conscious about eating healthily, which means tons of fresh fruits and vegetables.
We don’t know the full impacts of the majority of our industrialized food system. Emulsifiers, perservatives, flavouring agents and pesticides all are relatively new and their effects, impacts, build ups, and mixtures in the human body are not fully studied or understood yet.
The issue is a lack of money studying them, as the only group with the money to do all the studies needed are the ones producing the pesticides, and they have a dedicated interest in only doing enough studies to prove that there are no immediate issues with their products.
It’s a conflict of interest unless if there’s more government funding into examining these sorts of things, as there are no other major forces that don’t have a invested interest in making sure that the studies make the products look good.
Even then, human lifespans can reach 100 years, some of this stuff simply hasnt existed in our food supply to truly know what a lifetime of consumption can cause. Many of these additives and pesticides are tested to be safe per individual food and the total ingestion control is left to the consuner, who may be uninformed on their consumption rate, especially considering the increasing background presence of these substances in our water and soil.
About fifteen years ago, it was popularly believed within the science communities that the first bicentennial person had already been born, and some of the recent breakthroughs suggest that most of us under 50 might really be able to achieve that.
Of course, that’s presuming that the stuff we’re eating isn’t killing us on a timescale that only the advances of curing the major diseases of today will make relevant.
It will be sad if we manage to cure all the diseases that prevent most of us from reaching 100, only to find out that the food we’re eating is what’s preventing most of us from going much past that. And honesty, I wouldn’t be surprised if it takes something like that before money is directed towards properly studying all our additives and pesticides to check for which ones are doing us in.
I personally beleive that the industrialized diet causes significant health issues much earlier than 100 and that is a contributing factor to diseases including heart conditions, diabetes and obesity, all of which can shorten life spans and reduce quality of life.
the only thing that the industry needs to do to reduce pesticide residue is to just spray the produce with water.
Water is often the enemy you are applying the pesticide to combat; a practice known as desiccation. Granted, it seems everyone’s favourite desiccant is no longer on the table for modification here.
They might just mean wash the final product before shipping it out to the grocery stores.
I see you’ve never worked with flour before. Once it meets water there is no turning back.
Granted, if you catch it earlier, wheat berries aren’t that hard to run through the dryer, assuming you accept the environmental and financial cost. Get into beans, though… Good luck.
If you just mean something like Apples, which don’t need to be dry, who doesn’t already wash it before consumption already?
Well of course the moment you’ve processed the crop it’s too late to wash them. I was mostly just talking about fruits and vegetables.
But for grains and legumes, washing them before hulling them shouldn’t be a problem. Of course there’s the issue of added costs, but spraying additional pesticides is also a cost.
Restaurants. Just on the basis of how many people eat at those this is important.
deleted by creator
I don’t want more pesticides in my food. But more importantly we wanna keep the bees and other insects alive. If they disappear, we disappear. Simple as that
The guy in the photo can’t even be bothered to wear his respirator correctly.
Why? We already have 60% less insects in part BECAUSE of this?
Why the fuck would this be a good idea
Wait until we switch to a blue government. Regulators and inspectors are the first jobs shed for “small government” so it doesn’t matter what the numbers are then because we won’t be testing.
I guess guerilla farming it is then !
Whoever got paid
I think many here are forgetting we get a lot of our produce and fruit from Brazil, China, etc.
That’s who this rule relaxation is aimed at.
Ask Osoyoos about their high cancer rate from pestices being used on all the fruit and berry farms there.
They’re using a science-based process to update the maximum residue limit. That’s a good thing
Yeah, I don’t care about that argument. They’ll say they used science to determine if a company can increase their profits to the detriment of our health and tell us it’s good for us.
This is Canada, file a freedom of information request, read the peer reviewed articles. Using a science-based process to update the maximum residue limit is exactly what they should be doing. Anti-science conspiracy theories wrapped in cynicism is not helpful.
No I agree it’s not helpful. But in this day and age with the type of capitalism what we’re living in, forgive me for being cynical.
In Michigan, they tried to convince the people that the water had an acceptable level of lead and that they had nothing to worry about. Even Obama came to support the local government on this. And it turned out it wasn’t true. They came up with “scientific” evidence to try to prove it. All of this to support a local business that fucked up the local water supply when changing the aqueducts or some shit.
And I’m sorry but I don’t have time to do requests through the freedom of information act and potentially have to fight some bureaucrat because I’m not a journalist.
deleted by creator
I don’t have time to do requests through the freedom of information act and potentially have to fight some bureaucrat because I’m not a journalist
Why do you hold such strong opinions about something about which you are not well-informed?
edit: also, we need more citizen journalist to help fill the void as unfortunately local newspapers are disappearing
We DO need more and better journalists that investigate and find the truth and inform people. Right now it feels like media companies all have some kind of agenda and everything is just clickbait to generate revenue.
Noam Chomsky was right. It’s called the Propaganda Model of Communication.
100% and commercial social media algorithms amplify the clickbait and bury and nuanced perspectives
“Safe Food Matters president Mary Lou McDonald agreed. Accessing the health and safety data the PMRA uses to determine MRLs is challenging due to stringent limits on what data can be seen — and shared — by the public to protect pesticide companies’ intellectual property. She noted issues with the accuracy and relevance of the data used by the government in its assessment process.
Moreover, she noted the PMRA and pesticide manufacturers have a close working relationship — an issue also flagged by Lanphear.”
Mary Lou McDonald is a lawyer from an anti-pesticide charity, not a scientist.
Do you have anything that refutes her points? Or are you just resorting to the ad hominem fallacy?
Firstly, the burden of proof should be on the person making the claim and Mary Lou McDonald offers no evidence for her claim.
Secondly, I’m not making an ad hominem fallacy. I’m not attacking Mary Lou McDonald’s character. I’m pointing out that she is not an expert in this field.
That’s literally an ad hominem fallacy lmao. What is expertise if not part of ones character?
You are not an expert either, but that doesn’t mean anything you say about it is untrue and should be discarded. If you make a claim the validity of that claim is what should be debated, not whether your credentials are relevant.
I made two points above. Mary Lou McDonald offered no evidence AND she’s not a scientist. Mary Lou McDonald didn’t make an argument and provide evidence.
That’s literally an ad hominem fallacy lmao.
This is incorrect. Pointing out that someone is not an expert in a technical field they are discussing is not an ad hominem fallacy. That’s a ridiculous idea.
Protip: don’t get medical advice from lawyers
From the Wikipedia page for ad hominem:
Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
What a “ridiculous idea” lmao
