Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
There is growing concern about the harmful impact of pesticides on human health, agriculture and biodiversity, prompting calls from researchers to reduce their prevalence.
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.
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.
These limits aren’t being determined by politicians or companies
Are you sure?
For instance, on June 27, the PMRA announced plans to increase the MRL for the fungicide fludioxonil on imported sugar beets from 0.02 parts per million (ppm) to 4 ppm. The increase was requested by pesticide manufacturer Syngenta so foods that contain levels of fludioxonil currently allowed in the U.S. but not in Canada can be imported and sold in here.
I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Unless there is some evidence of corruption within Health Canada I believe that the scientists are working independently.
You must be aware of the way lobbying works.
Lobbying is very well regulate in Canada, as it should be. In Canada, we have the lobbying act which has broader definitions of lobbyists than the US. Every interactions including details between a lobbyist and a politician is reported to the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. You can request access to this data.
Again, I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Canada has well established and trustworthy institutions. We are lucky enough to live in a country where most people can’t name a single Supreme Court justice. This isn’t the US, we have our own problems to solve, stop importing problems from down south.
What conspiracy? The article clearly states that Syngenta requested the increase in MRL for fludioxonil. We don’t even need to reach for the lobbying registry to get that information. On the question of independence of scientists, what does Health Canada do in this context? Conduct their own human toxicity studies on the new MRL? As far as I know the manufacturer is responsible to do that and government bodies such as Health Canada review that data. Unless there’s something that appears to cause harm after the fact which necessitates independent study. Unless I’m totally wrong about this and Health Canada does independent studies on these compounds, we have a manufacturer creating the product, the safety studies around it and government agencies just review and approve or deny its use based on those studies. This is just business as usual, no conspiracies involved, and no independent science on Health Canada’s part. Unless you count reviewing the manufacturer studies as science, which technically is science, except there are obvious pitfalls with it.
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.
cc: /u/[email protected]
Are you sure?
You must be aware of the way lobbying works.
I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Unless there is some evidence of corruption within Health Canada I believe that the scientists are working independently.
Lobbying is very well regulate in Canada, as it should be. In Canada, we have the lobbying act which has broader definitions of lobbyists than the US. Every interactions including details between a lobbyist and a politician is reported to the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. You can request access to this data.
Again, I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Canada has well established and trustworthy institutions. We are lucky enough to live in a country where most people can’t name a single Supreme Court justice. This isn’t the US, we have our own problems to solve, stop importing problems from down south.
What conspiracy? The article clearly states that Syngenta requested the increase in MRL for fludioxonil. We don’t even need to reach for the lobbying registry to get that information. On the question of independence of scientists, what does Health Canada do in this context? Conduct their own human toxicity studies on the new MRL? As far as I know the manufacturer is responsible to do that and government bodies such as Health Canada review that data. Unless there’s something that appears to cause harm after the fact which necessitates independent study. Unless I’m totally wrong about this and Health Canada does independent studies on these compounds, we have a manufacturer creating the product, the safety studies around it and government agencies just review and approve or deny its use based on those studies. This is just business as usual, no conspiracies involved, and no independent science on Health Canada’s part. Unless you count reviewing the manufacturer studies as science, which technically is science, except there are obvious pitfalls with it.