[encoderer]

> pesticides are found to have no health impact

There was a time not too long ago when cigarettes were found to have no health impact.

We have only just begun to understand how to treat cancer with gene therapy.

It's paranoid to say that pesticides cause cancer. It's arrogant to say they absolutely don't. And I think it's reasonable to say that farming as close to the naturally evolved food chain as possible is a good thing.

I recognize that without today's increased yields we'd have a lot more starvation and hunger in this world. But it's not a binary choice. It's not hippy pastoral-era farming vs post-modern industrial farm. We can find a balance.

[kalleboo]

> eating as close to the naturally evolved food chain as possible is a good thing.

Where does the "naturally evolved food chain" end? Right before Agriculture? Is baking bread "unnatural"?

[ffk]

Except some research shows that cooking foods allows us to reach calories that would typically be unavailable due to denaturing things like plant cell walls.

There is also research that shows a correlation between exposure to pesticides and both birth defects and cancer.

Until more conclusive evidence exists that proves otherwise, why take the risk?

[Variance]

It would've been pretty easy to see what sort of health impact cigarettes had if there had been much rigorous study at the time. The common pesticides used on farm goods, quite to the contrary, have been very rigorously evaluated by numerous bodies, especially the FDA. The rigor is likely largely a result of the public's learned suspicion of everything.

While it's good to anticipate that there are lots of things that can cause cancer, it's not a scientific approach to take to assume that all goods are guilty until proven innocent. Nor is the naturalistic fallacy scientific--you fall into it with your comment on things close to the natural food chain being more likely to be healthy, if I take you to be referencing goods that can cause long-term health problems like cancer.

While you're right that it doesn't have to be a binary choice, it actually essentially is. More or less all GM/pesticide-treated goods have literally no observed downside, and so while we will continue to monitor long-term population health performance to ensure that nothing is causing any issues, right now we find that it is only a choice between more or less starvation; higher or lower food prices; better or worse produce quality; and higher or lower rates of crop damage, which can lead to health issues in those who consume tainted crops.