[jniedrauer]

> Although the levels of individual pesticides are within legal limits, activists fear the combination of multiple chemicals could be particularly damaging to people’s health.

This is the important part. Activists' fear should not dictate health policy. That should be done by scientists.

This organization, Pesticide Action Network, is opposed to GMOs and other modern farming techniques that kicked off the green revolution, seemingly on principle more than anything else. Consumers absolutely should be vigilant, because industrial food production has a bad track record. But with 7 billion humans to feed and counting, it is not realistic to roll back the green revolution.

[AdamHominem]

You're implying that because they're within legal limits everything is A-OK (how are the limits set? Exhibit A: US drinking water pollutant limits, which were raised by Bush, not based on science)

...then launching into an ad hominem attack (either the pesticide amounts are safe or not, and it has nothing to do with who is asking "is this safe or not?")

...and jumping on the word "fear" (I say "I fear the gun you've pointed at me is loaded and the safety off, would you stop pointing it at me until you check it?" You: "Oh ho look who says they're about to get shot based on NOTHING BUT FEAR". No, I'm asking you to CHECK the gun, and in the meantime stop pointing at me, because the nonzero chance of me suffering harm)

...followed by a lot of personal opinion about modern farming techniques

...including a bunch of hand-waiving about how an incredibly complex problem will be magic-bulleted (or even helped) by rolling back the incredibly loose environmental rules farmers are required to follow.

The reason we have 'trouble' feeding 7 billion humans is because of trade policies and protectionism. For example, corn in Mexico is artificially high in price because the US turns a fuckton of its corn into ethanol (which is an energy-negative process) and high fructose corn syrup (which is only cost-effective because the price of sugar imports is kept artificially high by government regulation, to protect US sugar producers.) It's also because we do things like dump food in countries with hunger, thus collapsing prices for local farmers (who then can't survive and stop farming), instead of helping those countries produce or buy more food.

Also, please provide evidence that EU farmers (using lower pesticide amounts) have lower yields than US farmers. Don't forget to account for the cost of the pesticides vs reduced yield.

[formerly_proven]

> You're implying that because they're within legal limits everything is A-OK (how are the limits set? Exhibit A: US drinking water pollutant limits, which were raised by Bush, not based on science)

The obverse is also true: "XY detected in ZY" on its own is not very meaningful, because many compounds can be detected in staggeringly low concentrations.

[varelse]

We found out the hard way that you can have manganese sediment in your drinking water to the point that the water comes out brown and full of sand and it doesn't violate EPA regulations just their recommendations as it clogs all your plumbing fixtures and sets you up for a huge repair bill. And the water company is absolutely not responsible in any way.

[guru4consulting]

Long ago, I had worked at EPA OPP division, the office of pesticide protection. In general, the regulations are not enough. I won't be able to share all the details, but I can say that these kinds of regulations sometime help the pesticide companies because they can legally do the illegal/unethical things.

[TedDoesntTalk]

Another example: EPA allows up to 15 µg/L of lead in drinking water. But lower levels are known to be dangerous:

“Researchers now know, blood lead levels in children as low as five micrograms per deciliter — the Centers for Disease Control's "level of concern" — can lead to IQ deficits and increases in behavior problems like ADHD and conduct disorder.

In adults, low-level exposure of 10 micrograms per deciliter can cause high blood pressure and kidney problems.”

And the CDC has said that no level of lead in blood is safe.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/13/489825051...

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/lead/final/monographhealt...

[nitrogen]

You're comparing micrograms per liter in water to micrograms per deciliter in blood. Those are very different things.

[pvaldes]

bioaccumulation still can happen

[bawolff]

> This is the important part. Activists' fear should not dictate health policy. That should be done by scientists.

I think anyone should be able to raise an objection - and then we should look at the science to decide how valid it is.

The activists seem to be worried that while individually the chemicals are fine, maybe they aren't in combination. I have no idea if that's true or not, but it doesn't sound impossible, and there have certainly been other cases in other contexts where a combination is toxic but the individual parts aren't. If that's been studied great, if not we should definitely study it to find out.

[OJFord]

> individually the chemicals are fine, maybe they aren't in combination

I'm sure I've heard colleagues (more on the 'ag' side of the 'agtech' company) mention that, things that can't be used in combination, but I can't see where it would be listed (or find an example where it is) in the pesticides register: https://secure.pesticides.gov.uk/pestreg/prodsearch.asp

I'll ask next week if I remember, curious now, since it seems fairly obvious? Just like you can buy all sorts of safe household & garden chemicals for cleaning etc. but which if you know what you're doing (I don't) and want to (I certainly don't) can be used to construct very not-safe things.

[argvargc]

And when activists are scientists?

Or what about when activists just pay attention to, read and understand science?

That, in general, seems to be something rather common - emergent science is often what motivates activists, especially regarding safety.

Actually, much science itself could be considered an ongoing process of a kind of "activism".

As a sibling suggested, if something plausible and potentially harmful hasn't been studied enough to rule it out; study it.

[ekianjo]

Nope dont mix Science and activism. Activism already has a set goal in mind. Science is about the method to reach the truth.

[ceejayoz]

So, once you've reached the truth, like "climate change exists and will have various negative impacts", or "cigarettes are killing millions via cancer", what next?

Activism.

[version_five]

> This is the important part. Activists' fear should not dictate health policy. That should be done by scientists.

Elected politicians should "dictate" - I would say build consensus on - health policy. Scientists should inform it.

[amelius]

Science: substance X is bad.

Pesticide company: Ok, we'll modify X slightly so that it is a different molecule from a regulations perspective, but with the same effect.

[ta988]

Look at the dtory of Mediator in France. Same story. Take a substance that's known to cause cardiac valve defects but makes a ton of money, add an easily cleavable chemical group to it, make money until anybody notices, claim you didn't do it on purpose...

[vkou]

> This is the important part. Activists' fear should not dictate health policy. That should be done by scientists.

The default is that vendors dictate health policy. It should be up to them to conclusively prove that these chemicals are not harmful at the concentrations they are used.

[forgotmypw17]

Do you think sceintists who have in the past worked for the pesticide producers and are still affiliated with them in various ways should be included in the decisionmaking?

Do you think these scientists are more or less trustworthy than activists with an education and a strong interest in human health?