• Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    …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.

    • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it’s dangerous then obviously stop doing it. But use science to test your hypothesis

        • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

            • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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/cyborganism@lemmy.ca

                • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  You must be aware of the way lobbying works.

                  • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Are you sure?

                    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.

        • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

    • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.“