[octacat]

More pesticides means more pollution. The farms are in the open rivers. Which means damage to the ecosystem and to the wild life (i.e. pesticides are to fight infection and that infection affects the wild fish population).

So, basically getting more profits by introducing more issues for "someone else to solve".

[space_fountain]

I’m replying here just to the person above. I don’t have an opinion about if this single action was a good policy or not. Though, I am generally supportive of capitalism as a system that has moved a huge number of people out of poverty, but I obviously acknowledge that externalities at least need managed by counties (along with lots of things actually). But it is wrong that companies merely act to maximize profit margin. It feels like it’s part of the same recent trend of acting like the reason we have global warming is because of a handful of selfish people. There are trade offs. Turning the world into a organic farming utopia would be forcing billions to starve. Banning pesticides here would likely result in higher fish prices. Turning off oil right now would mean trillions dying as the world’s economy stopped. That doesn’t mean we can do nothing, but we can’t pretend like problems in the world are created exclusively by bad selfish people because then we’ll pretend we never need to change