[blodovnik]

There’s no surprise here is there?

We, as a society, poison pretty much everything as a standard part of the agricultural process.

The outcome -the goal - of that is of course, death of vast numbers of insects.

Mission accomplished. It’s a success story, strangely.

The only thing that seems weird to me is how society was so easily convinced that soaking all our food in poison is OK and not a problem all good thumbs up. That’s really weird.

[obituary_latte]

Is it that society was convinced? Or was/is it that it is more “out of sight, out of mind”? I think for the layperson, little matters other than how much does it cost? If there is some invisible but safe-for-us chemical that increases yield and decreases cost, all the better for us, right?

I think this is one of the great things to come out of the invention of the web. We are becoming better informed and this kind of information is becoming more prevalent. It’s becoming much harder for these big corporations to hide these negative side effects (insect decline, Round-Up cancers etc) and we as a population are becoming more aware of the negative side effects of our imprint on the world.

[rollthehard6]

Reminds of all those times we are told that 'customers demanded X', as if we all stood outside supermarkets with placards saying, "We demand huge strawberries that don't taste of anything". The market does what helps the market, it often isn't good for people or the planet they inhabit - that's the story of our current era and customers need to demand change on that basis.

[taneq]

Yeah but when faced with the choice between the tomatoes that were $8.50/kg and really nice but would go off in 2 days, vs. the tomatoes that were $4.50/kg and still nice and red and lasted a whole week but were pretty tasteless, you bought the latter, didn't you?

Customers demand things by paying money for them.

[bbddg]

Customers in many cases don't have the information to know the potential long term damages of buying the $4.50/kg tomatoes. It's insane to put that burden on the end user as opposed to the tomato grower. How in the world is the customer supposed to know what pesticides are used and what the damages could be?

Trying to flatten all these problems into the failings of individual customer decisions completely obfuscates the actual cause of these problems. Which is generally an economic system that puts private profits above everything else.

[neom]

What's extra weird is that everything got really cheap, yet most people don't have any money, and the environment is in disarray. I'd imagine history is not going to look kindly on the wealthy.

[AnthonyMouse]

> I'd imagine history is not going to look kindly on the wealthy.

That's assuming the money is going to the wealthy, which isn't really compatible with things being cheap.

What really happened is that other things -- like housing -- got more expensive. But most of that money didn't go to Bill Gates, it went to grandma when she retired to Florida and sold her house to a millennial for four times what she paid for it in real dollars, whose huge mortgage payment is in turn now eating more than all of the money saved from having crappy tomatoes.

[bilbo0s]

History won't be looking kindly on anyone in this era. Wealthy or not.

It's not like before, when no one knew how things worked and were subsequently duped into doing dumb things. In this era, historians will find the information was openly published on the internet, in music, in newscasts, in movies, etc for all to see, and we still did the dumb thing.

I suspect entire books on everything from history to psychology will be written in an attempt to dissect and figure out what was going on and how this could happen?

[AdrianB1]

$4.5/kg does not look cheap at all, I buy tomatoes for less than $1/kg directly from farmers 15 km outside the city or up to $1.5 from the Mega Image (Belgian chain) at the end of the street. The cheap ones have great taste, the supermarket ones are bad, I buy those only outside of the regular season when they are the only option.

[bbddg]

puts every imaginable fruit and veggie in a store at extremely low prices

Why are people buying this food that is harming the planet??

[DFHippie]

You can't put the burden on the grower either. If you have two growers, one who tries to internalizes all the costs of production and one who doesn't, the market will reward the latter, because the market -- the consumers -- only see the price and appearance of the tomatoes. Regulation is required so that externalizing costs is not an option for either grower. People who rail against regulations, most of them, just see it as a cost and a hassle and a totem of a hostile tribe they want to drive out of their society; but the people who are paid to rail against it are paid by interests who know well what the regulation is meant to do and know that they will be the externalizers without it. And what they're paying for is agents who will bamboozle the majority, keeping them useful, angry idiots.

[AnthonyMouse]

It's not as simple as "regulation good" or "regulation bad" -- there are plenty of companies that lobby for regulation because they know it will exclude smaller competitors, or ward off lawsuits because they followed the regulations even if people still died, or they want them to get passed while their stooge is in the majority so they can draft the rules themselves and then claim that it was already done last year when someone else wants to do something more effective next year.

There was at one point (not sure if it's still in effect) a government regulation that you couldn't advertise that you had tested all of your beef for mad cow disease, because people would be inclined to favor beef that could make that claim and cause the market to demand a lot of expensive testing.

The problem is that in order to be effective, you need regulations that voters are paying detailed attention to. But that's almost exactly the same problem as getting consumers to pay detailed attention to what they're buying.

[duckMuppet]

Central planning is a failure throughout history.

The problem isn't the capitalism that transitioned the US into a powerhouse that feeds the world or provides goods at discounted prices, or ensures that millennials in Minnesota can enjoy avocado dip while complaning about having to much.

This is a failure at the local level. Ever spent time in the grocery isle? Children believe their meat comes from meat packages. Not that it was a living creature at one point. As people have moved into cities, they've lost the connection to the land that provides for them, and life's interconnectedness.

Top this off with the crony capitalism that gives subsidies to farmers for tariffs, or subsides for a myriad of other reasons all of which are asinine(like ethanol or which crops yield most), and prevent groups like Monsanto from any real liability (both civil and criminal) by giving them government/EPA endorsements.. Such endorsements often take years before they recognize a mistake was made or that their data from 1977 is woefully inaccurate.

No this is a horror story of central planning gone horrifically wrong again, and no one can prosecute/sue these terrible companies out of existence because they have the EPA's blue checkmark and some politicians endorsement.

In the absence of the ability for individuals to hold companies liable for their mistakes, it is absolutely incumbent on individuals and parents to make sound choices. Depending on the government to be your saviour simply leads to more tragedy.

[bbddg]

I stopped after you unironically started complaining about millennials and avocado dip (guacamole?)

[PeterStuer]

Negative externalities are not priced in. The whole neoliberal market game is to extract benefits while pushing the burdens onto others. Vote with your wallet is only honest if all externalities would be priced in, otherwise it is just a vehicle for shifting the blame onto the hapless consumer.

[arcticbull]

Red isn’t a flavor and nice isn’t a texture though. Those $4.50 tomatoes are light red, mealy and flavorless. They’re the Red Delicious of the tomato world.

If you haven’t tried California dry farm tomatoes do yourself a favor, they’re worlds apart and worth every penny.

[monetus]

Also, keep your eye out for granger county TN tomatoes. Incredible.

[mikeash]

When did I have that choice?

[jimhi]

We did demand X though. The supermarkets had both tasteless strawberries and organic ones and we made our choice. Many supermarkets still have organic ones and we still pick the cheaper, larger, less tasty one.

[nck4222]

Organic doesn't mean more flavor.

Tasteless strawberries are around for a few reasons

1) you can't try before you buy. bigger, redder strawberries look better, so sell better, so are grown more, and so on until that's the expectation. if varieties are cultivated for their looks, that means they're not cultivated for their taste or sugar content

2) bigger strawberries are easier/faster to pick, which means they're cheaper to pick

3) people want strawberries in winter, which means for a lot of us that means we're accustomed to buying strawberries that have been shipped thousands of miles and not picked recently.

https://www.npr.org/2012/05/17/152944880/bigger-means-better...

[pfdietz]

> Organic doesn't mean more flavor.

It doesn't formally mean that, but often it means that in practice.

I think some of the success of organic food is that it can in practice be a marker for attractive features that otherwise have nothing to do with "organic". Consumers learn the association and use it, even if they don't buy into the organic philosophy.

[bryanlarsen]

There are much better labels than "organic" to indicate flavor. "Heirloom", "local", "in-season", "small plot", "not greenhouse grown", "small", "picked ripe", "picked today" are all labels that are more likely to indicate flavor than organic, IMO.

But the best is to find a producer or label that prioritizes flavor.

Organic produce has monopolized the premium section of supermarkets. Without organic, supermarkets would find some other way to sell higher margin produce to less price conscious consumers. That dimension would probably be taste (or locality, which I have another rant about).

[mikeash]

Maybe they should try advertising this.

For me, "organic" is a marker for "bullshit label that's used to convince people to pay more." If they actually do taste better, I might buy the stuff.

[mc32]

Most supermarkets have pint baskets where you’re allowed to sample. Sometimes they have sampling and “pit” trays. So people do have a choice at least in some supermarkets.

The big issue for consumers (me inc) is shelflife. I want them to last more than 3 days in the fridge.

Seascapes and Rosas have a decent combo of shelflife and taste.

[corey_moncure]

>The big issue for consumers (me inc) is shelflife. I want them to last more than 3 days in the fridge.

Are you married and if so, do both of you work full time jobs? My hunch is that this is directly related to two-income households

[elygre]

I want my strawberries to survive till nightfall. Because strawberries.. yum!

[lonelappde]

Why is a long lasting bad thing better than a short lasting good thing? Why not buy frozen berries, dehydrated berries, or just cardboard, if shelf life is the priority?

[bamboozled]

I just want to share an anecdotal story with regards to "tasteless" produce from super markets.

I used to absolutely despise eating salad, I never knew why but I always just thought it was boring and I'd rather eat anything else; However, my girlfriend and I wanted to buy produce that wasn't wrapped in plastic so we started to shop at a local market held each week.

There we meet a Tongan farmer who grew everything using traditional methods, the biggest difference he said was that he used absolutely minimal irrigation (unless absolutely required due to drought at planting) and he also said that what made vegetables bitter was pesticides and it turned people off them (so I'm assuming he dind't use them). He said that the lack of pesticides and excessive water is what made his stuff taste so great, and his groups had to be a little tougher to survive so he believed they were healthier crops.

Anyway the guy was legit and he and his wife often held weekends where you could visit his farm and see everything, it was real deal.

The main point I wanted to make was that, while we were being produce from this guy, I noticed that I actually loved eating the salads, like became quite addicted to them, he even sold the flowers from all the vegetables and told us the best nutrients are found in the flours, they were delicious. Ever since we moved away and no longer had access to this guys produce, I went off them immediately again. I really dislike standard supermarket produce.

[lonelappde]

With all respect, that's a load of magical thinking and placebo effect.

[GlenTheMachine]

Maybe but not clearly so.

The produce I grow in my garden does in fact taste much better than the produce in the supermarket. There are good reasons for this. I grow heirloom varieties that were bred for taste and not shelf life. Watermelons and tomatoes in particular really do taste much better when they are under water stress. A watermelon that has been given too much water looks fabulous and has almost no sugar. I pick them when they’re ripe not a week before that.

IDK whether pesticides make produce bitter. But the rest of the post checks out.

[egypturnash]

I have lived in situations where there was a good farmer's market nearby where I could buy produce directly from small local farmers, and I have had the same thing happen to me. I began looking forwards to eating a salad, then stopped when I no longer had easy access to the good stuff.

The various things that happen to produce destined for a shelf halfway across the country are really just not appetizing.

[bamboozled]

I don't think so because it wasn't actually me who cared about the produce, it was my partners idea to change suppliers. I just went a long with it and thought nothing of it.It wasn't until I realized I was enjoying salad that I started asking questions and I found out he was using different methods and not just reselling other farmers produce.

I must admit I noticed right away the the produce was far more visually appealing then what I was used to, more saturated colors, I put it down to it being washed more thoroughly.

I think it's also important to note that once I stopped receiving the better produce, I tried very hard to continue liking salads, I just couldn't do it.

On a side note, I'd like to say is, it's a shame people miss out on eating the flowers of plants, they're really delicious and a visually impressive addition to salads.

[hourislate]

Organic only means that the grower can't use synthetic pesticides, so Organic Foods are not pesticide free. The Government has allowed various Organic Pesticides that growers can use. I still choose Organic for most of my food whether that makes a difference or not.

Getting back to the Original story, the Pesticides used in Organic Farming still kill insects.

Here is a link with more information.

http://npic.orst.edu/ingred/organic.html

[shims]

Many organic pesticides are synthetic. The organic label in the US doesn't mean much.

[nobodyandproud]

I pay a premium for tasty, often seasonal fruit like strawberries and peaches because the difference in taste is night and day.

One tastes better than candy. The other will teach kids not to eat fruit.

A tip: Use your nose to sniff and distinguish between what’s ripe and tasty and what’s merely visually appealing.

[LargeWu]

I think you've touched on an important point here: Not only do we demand perfect looking produce, we demand it out of season, and we demand it to be shipped in from all over the world on a daily basis.

The reason we use pesticides is because farmers need to increase yields to meet demand. But what if we didn't demand asparagus in winter. What if we didn't demand apples in spring? What if people in northern climates didn't eat pineapple or coconut or bananas regularly? What if we bought food from the store that had bruises or imperfections?

[bamboozled]

Same, I often don’t bother buying alcohol or chocolate and spend that money on better quality produce, a good piece of fruit is better than any other desert in my opinion.

[lonelappde]

Why don't we care that fruit that is "better than candy" was genetically engineered over centuries to be full of unhealthy amounts of sugar?

Modern grocery fruits are not naturally healthy.

[nobodyandproud]

The fiber, the general high water content, pectin, and vitamins make ripe fruit a superior choice.

[sarcasmOrTears]

More than one time I bought organic and there wasn't a big difference. Fruit quality and taste is so random that in the end I buy the cheapest

[samatman]

This is in fact among the best signals, because ripe fruit is a perishable commodity that floods the market in season.

When I'm casing a supermarket looking for fruit I tend to start with price and then check the goods.

[r00fus]

This is the same reason that popular non-fast food restaurants have better tasting food in general.

The flow allows you to have more fresh produce.

I only buy organic when it’s not in some ghetto due to pricing.

[adrr]

Organic doesn’t mean pesticide free. The pesticides used are “natural” instead of man made. Organic also means manure based fertilizer which means risk of food borne diseases like Ecoli 157h and salmonella.

[rhacker]

This is a huge pet peeve of mine specifically with Organic Strawberries. Somehow this company called "Driscoll's" has started showing up nationwide for berries. Straw, Blue, Black, Rasp, etc... It must be a conglomerate at this point. But some people at various Whole Foods corporate and other outlets have just started bowing down to them. The offer the most tasteless organic strawberries in the world.

[Retric]

Except, they don’t actually give you a way to judge taste. With apples people learn of better tasting variety, but strawberries are unlabeled.

[enriquto]

aren't they? here in France there are a few labelled varieties (not as many labels as apples, though)

[Retric]

At least in the US it looks like this: https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-fresh-fruits-berries-...

You don’t actually know anything about the strawberries in the bottom left other than their organic.

[ravar]

I don't do this, but I do notice that in super markets lots of people do try the fruit before they it. So there are ways of making sure you get good fruit.

[primroot]

It'd be more accurate to say 'commoditization favoring economies of scale for the sake of anti-competitive oligopolization demands X.' It then takes some PR money to make people 'demand' all the crap.

Addded: the mindless commoditization is abetted by subsidies, including the subsidy of not having to price in negative externalities.

[colordrops]

> I think this is one of the great things to come out of the invention of the web. We are becoming better informed and this kind of information is becoming more prevalent. It’s becoming much harder for these big corporations to hide these negative side effects

We are at the end of that era. The big corporations are slowly closing down that unintended loophole in which the internet was a tool for free movement of knowledge. Google now filters and shapes results into their idea of what is OK rather than exactly what you are searching for [1]. The FBI just called conspiracy theorists a domestic threat [2] and open forums are under attack [3]. Not long ago you were a nutjob for claiming Monsanto and Roundup were anything other than gifts from God. We will be going back to that world soon enough.

[1] http://autocompleteaudit.com/autocomplete/Bill%20clinton

[2] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/fbi-doc...

[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/clxdjk/conspira...

[maxerickson]

"The FBI assesses anti-government, identity based, and fringe political conspiracy theories very likely motivate some domestic extremists, wholly or in part, to commit criminal and sometimes violent activity," the document said. "The FBI further assesses in some cases these conspiracy theories very likely encourage the targeting of specific people, places, and organizations, thereby increasing the likelihood of violence against these targets."

Gee, what a bunch of authoritarian whack jobs.

[feanaro]

I agree with your sentiment except for its defeatist facet. Let's not act like we are defeated and helpless. We can help shape the web and the internet into the shape we want and we are not helpless.

[flatline]

People were fighting Monsanto back in the late 90s. If anything I think they have improved their public image, poor though it still is.

[ncmncm]

Now they are Bayer, and Monsanto doesn't exist anymore.

The same people are still poisoning us, though.

[mhkool]

you are neglecting the negative effects of spraying billions of tons of Roundup on the planet before the public knows for sure that it is a dangerous poison. Same with neonics, we sprayed too much and the insect populations shrunk too much and will not revive quickly since the poison is still in plants and soil.

The obvious thing is that industries work for profit and have no sympathy with insects or the health of individuals and that we are unable to regulate industries in a proper way.

[Theodores]

For me the example of what you cite is the wonder product 'Scotchgard'.

You could put it on your shoes from new and they would stay looking new, you could spray it on furniture and it would survive spills from coffee/tea/wine. You could coat your whole house with Scotchgard and be blissfully unaware that it was a bio-hazard.

Plus who thought negatively of the 3M corporation?

3M was a brand that you trusted, it was a sign of quality and familiar through 'Scotchtape™' and 'Post-It™' notes. Their reflective products were literally brilliant and life saving. Smart people used Scotchgard. Stupid people that didn't care about their belongings didn't.

But now we know that perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS - the magic ingredient) is not what you want in your blood. Pretty much stands to reason when you think about it, but nobody in the 1980's thought that carpets laced with the stuff would lead to people being poisoned with it.

The same chemical was used in bulk by the military for fire-fighting kit and other uses, plus the factories making things like shoes, carpets and everything else led to a pollution problem. So now, along with Strontium-90 we all have a little bit of perfluorooctane sulfonate in our bodies. Lovely.

Since the chemicals are not 'food' or 'medicines' there is no regulation on what is a safe level to have in the water supply.

But we now know that from the early 1970's the people at 3M knew there was a problem. But they kept quiet and just marketed more and more variations of the product. I only learned recently that PFOS was evil. I had also stopped using it without thinking about it. Partly due to other products such as Gore-Tex™ coming along there is way as a consumer that you realise the old product has been phased out. You just pay the premium for the new and improved water repellent to not even know the old one was 'evil'.

But the execs at 3M knew all along. Like the execs at Philip Morris. Or at Exxon. Or at Monsanto.

[hammock]

Critical to Gore-tex is the DWR coating, which is still made of PFCs (basically Scotchgard). Sometimes they use shorter chain molecules like C6 (vs. C8), which have a shorter biological half-life, but the harmful effects are the same.

[pfdietz]

I think this "Roundup is a dangerous poison" was a propaganda meme that came out of the need to demonize US agribusiness in Europe. It's a kind of social activism protectionism. I would not be at all surprised to learn it was sustained by funding from ag interests in Europe.

OF course Roundup is not a dangerous poison. This is simply a lie that is repeated over and over by the dishonest and the gullible.

[mhkool]

I base my opinion on three court cases in the USA where evidence was borught to court that Monsanto knew many years ago about the cancer causing risks. on what do you base "this is simply a lie" ?

[pfdietz]

Court cases are not good ways to determine science. In a particularly egregious case in the 1980s, for example, a jury returned a verdict for a defendant in which it was claimed that a head injury in a car accident led to lung cancer.

Scientifically, there is no good evidence that Roundup causes cancer.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/17/cancer-juries-scienti...

[aldoushuxley001]

Please don’t cite snopes, it’s the worst possible citation you can give.

Here’s a better citation: IARC (the World Health Organization’s cancer research division) conducted a review with 20 international experts of all the publicly available research on glyphosate and found that it does indeed likely cause cancer: https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-gly...

[dekhn]

court cases like that don't mean anything, they're super biased by what lawyers make up as a narrative.

[lonelappde]

Whether roundup is safe or not is not clear to me, but the decision of 12 unwilling laymen with no access to independent research tools is certainly not credible.

[mhkool]

I did not say anything about the capability of the jury but was talking about the evidence that was brought to court.

[taneq]

Poe's Law is strong with this one. I can't tell if you're serious or if this is advanced snarkasm.

[pfdietz]

Totally serious. The anti-Roundup fervor is of a kind with anti-GMO fervor. The goal of it is to provide a pretext to exclude cheaper US agricultural products from Europe.

[jyounker]

I don’t trust the research that was done on roundup. Supposedly it degrades within six months.

The reality is that it doesn’t. We know this because the city of Davis, CA does public composting. Yard trimmings are scooped up, taken to the city compost yard, and over a year or som it becomes compost. Residents can pick up a quantity of free compost every year.

Around ‘97-‘98 the city compost started killing many kinds of plants.

The cause turned out to be glyphosphate. Despite Monsanto’s research, the reality was that glyphosate persists far longer than six months.

[lonelappde]

American farmers suing a German company (Bayer) over their cancers is about protecting the European economy?

[taneq]

I haven't researched this in any great depth but I did just run across the following:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-o...

https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-round...

Doesn't sound completely cut-and-dried to me.

[egypturnash]

Tell this to my husband's brother, who has probably-terminal cancer of a type that's got a strong statistical link to the chemicals he worked with as a lawncare professional.

[pfdietz]

"Chemicals", not Roundup.

Guilt by association?

[egypturnash]

Pretty sure that's one of the ones he worked with.

There's also that class-action suit for Roundup users who are also cancer-havers that I keep seeing ads for lately...

[DennisP]

Considering the amount of pesticide that homeowners spray in their own yards, I'd say most of society was pretty much convinced.

[peignoir]

If it helps the place where I’ve seen nature taking back was Chernobyl. Looks like radioactivity is far less toxic than humans.

[blablabla123]

> If there is some invisible but safe-for-us chemical that increases yield

In fact increased yield is also kind of good for the environment because this way agriculture needs less space. (Speaking of deforestation because of agriculture...) But still, insecticides, fungicides etc. have been used far too carelessly in the past and of course it takes years or sometimes decades to see the effects...

[LargeWu]

There's certainly a trade-off. However, grocery stores in the US discard massive amounts of produce, and then still more is wasted when consumers bring it home and don't use it. It feels like we would have plenty of room to reduce yields, ship less food around, and still get everybody fed. (that's a hypothesis, not a conclusion)

[blablabla123]

I'm too lazy to get the reference but at least for Germany or EU both numbers you mention (consumer throwaway rate + supermarket throwaway rate) were double digit. So yeah, your conclusion is pretty much justified ;)

[elorant]

It's a mix of both. If you want to eat tomatoes in the middle of winter agriculture will have to use a lot of pesticides. If society didn't have ridiculous expectations my guess is that the industry would use more sustainable methods of growing food.

[bbddg]

Everyone wants to eat tomatoes in the middle of winter! I also want ice cream that tastes great but has no calories. If some company makes an ice cream like that but we find out 10 years later it's leading to the extinction of many insect species on the planet. Is it really my fault for buying the ice cream? Not the producers fault for using chemicals with such huge downsides?

[elorant]

Of course you're fucking responsible. We all are in some way. And that's the thing. We need to start acting more responsibly instead of expecting someone else to solve our problems. We can't live in a world where we consume meat three times a week. Demand drives the market and what the market does is deforesting huge areas to grow grass to feed the cows which in turn add tons of methane to the atmosphere. Companies won't change unless we change our habits.

And no, not everyone wants to eat tomatoes in the middle of winter. People who are more knowledgeable about food production never eat fruits and vegetables out of their seasons.

[DangitBobby]

How can people be responsible for knowledge they don't have? Not everyone can know everything about all of the food they eat, which is by design in some cases.

[bbddg]

I do think we all share some blame. We live in a democracy (no matter how flawed) and we bear some of the burden of the decisions of society as a whole.

The answer to these problems however isn't just saying "everyone stop eating tomatoes in the winter." You know full well that tomatoes grown in the summer are grown using the same shit, they can just source them from somewhere a little bit further north.

Why is it that I can go to the grocery store and see two different types of tomatoes: one type is cheaper and is killing the planet and the other is more expensive but safe for the environment? I have the means and the knowledge to buy the more expensive one but we can't expect that someone living paycheck to paycheck is going to be willing or even able to do the same. They aren't the ones to blame here.

I do agree that we can't expect someone else to solve this problem for us. We need collective action to demand significant regulation and change to the economic system. Scolding individual people for making rational economic decisions when they have a boot on their neck isn't going to fix anything.

[marmaduke]

> We are becoming better informed

'Distracted' is probable a more accurate median adjective for this phrase.

With Google you don't have confirmation bias, just confirmation.

[rapind]

That would be true if not for massive disinformation campaigns by corporate interests. Apparently most of us can't be bothered to dig into the source / motivations behind any media story, be it TV news, newspapers, Facebook feeds, Twitter posts, or blogs, etc.

[jacobwilliamroy]

Men and women went to great lengths to make sure no one ever got a straight answer regarding glyphosate. Y'know they use it to kill wheat before harvesting? Makes it lighter so the harvester can save a few piastres. Whole wheat bread can actually be a lot less clean than white bread, because the glyphosate is not washed off of the outer layer of the grain, which is discarded in the production of white bread.

Is it safe to eat glyphosate? Well Patrick Moore says that a person could drink a glass of the stuff and be fine. He also said "no I won't drink it. I'm not an idiot."

In Hawaii I notice absurd amounts of pesticide use. Look at any place where humans gather: if it has plants, it has pesticide. Golf course, soccer field, planter, sidewalk turf.

[maxerickson]

The application of herbicides before harvest is about more than making things easier for the harvester:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation

[xg15]

Well, that's a problem with many aspects involving "wilderness", not just insects. The usual train of thought seems to be that yes, natural landscapes are occasionally pretty, but as a farmer it would be irrational to have them on your land. Problem of course, if there is someone for every patch of land who says "not here", then in the end, there is no room for it to go at all.

[aedocw]

As another person said, its more about being "out of sight, out of mind". But the biggest component is cost and availability. Large scale farming (unsustainable over the long term) with a single crop per season and minimal rotation allowed for huge crop yields over the short term which drove prices down. At this point the majority of consumers do not want to pay more than they've become accustomed to paying for any fruits or vegetables.

Sustainable farming costs more in the short term. Over the long term it is the only reasonable way to farm.

The book "Lentil Underground" by Liz Carlisle was a great read on this topic.

[ThomPete]

The outcome is also better lives, less sickness, healthy crops etc. yes there are drawbacks but the goal isnt just good or bad its good and bad, the discussion we can have is whether is more good than bad or vice versa.

[amelius]

> The only thing that seems weird to me is how society was so easily convinced that soaking all our food in poison is OK and not a problem all good thumbs up. That’s really weird.

It's probably more a "tragedy of the commons" type of thing.

If X is detrimental to society but necessary for big players to make more money, then you can bet X will happen. Especially if society doesn't find out immediately about the bad aspects.

[chiefalchemist]

> That’s really weird.

From what I can gather (anecdotally) is most of them would rather trust the system, or blame the system, than confront the fact they are undermining their children's future. Stormy Daniel's is a concern. The shite passing for food on the kitchen table is not nearly as important.

I'm not joking when I say, we are in The Matrix - just batteries for the machine.

[lisper]

> The only thing that seems weird to me is how society was so easily convinced that soaking all our food in poison is OK and not a problem all good thumbs up. That’s really weird.

Not really. The alternative was having all our food eaten by insects and not having enough left over for ourselves. It's kind of a no-brainer in the short run.

[mortdeus]

well because evolution has made it so that what kills insects only manages to give us a really bad headache (and potentially cancer way down the line, but everything gives us cancer so that is okay)

[SubiculumCode]

Not juat agriculture, every lawn and apartment complex.

[buboard]

If all people started growing their own food it would be far worse. I believe thats how people were convinced

[throwaway94857]

>"that's really weird"

Not really, given that our use of pesticides allows us to feed billions of people worldwide at low cost. Rates of hunger in the developed world are almost non-existent and globally hunger rates are as low as they've ever been and continue to plummet.

Pesticide treated food is safe and healthy too, so we're feeding the world with safe and healthy food. This is a great thing.

It's not surprising at all that people would say all good. There would need to be some catastrophic side effects of pesticide use for people to even think about questioning it.

So far all problems related to pesticides have been far, far outweighed by them giving us the ability to feed billions.

[ncmncm]

Thereby causing global climate disruption, likely ultimately causing billions to starve.

Nice work.

[throwaway94857]

We'll be fine. We already have the tool to save the climate (nuclear), just need to actually use it.

[ncmncm]

It would take far too long to get enough nuke capacity online to do any good, and would steal capital from more cost-effective measures. Nuke power was never justifiable on a cost basis, and is much less so now than ever before.