[thesmtsolver2]

> EU countries export these banned pesticides to third countries

Shouldn't EU ban ideally exports of good that it bans internally?

[rsynnott]

The EU has said it will, and some member states, like France, have, but a full ban is still pending.

[rplnt]

Couldn't it also be case where the pesticides are fine to use on potatoes but not on tomatoes, for example?

[psychoslave]

No, pesticide are volatile and can poison water deep in earth no matter which thing was the initial target.

[malfist]

That's not really true. Most pesticides have a PHI (pre-harvest interval) where they will be broken down by microbs or sunlight before harvest. There's also pesticides that are more stable and thus can't be used on plants meant for human consumption, but even then most of those do not last very long in the soil. Microbes are very efficient at breaking down chemicals.

And then, after all of that, you still have: the solution to pollution is dilution.

What's toxic on a fruit tree for human consumption, is likely not toxic on thousands of cubic yards of dirt or millions of gallons of ground water.

[im3w1l]

Only if you see the world in black and white and those pesticides being an absolute evil. But if you see it as a complicated tradeoff where whats right for one country can be wrong for another then it's unproblematic.

[thesmtsolver2]

> But if you see it as a complicated tradeoff where whats right for one country can be wrong for another then it's unproblematic.

How can anyone entertain that belief unless:

a) they think people in other countries have a different biology

b) profits matter more than the health of people in other countries (mostly former colonies of Europe)

[mrob]

They can believe that:

Capitalism is the most effective driver of progress known.

Capitalism has lifted enormous numbers of people out of absolute poverty and is a great positive for the world.

Inequality is an unavoidable side-effect of capitalism.

The optimal risk:benefit tradeoff depends on the resources you have available.

It can be rational behavior for a poor person to take greater risks with their health than a rich person, because the value of wealth has strongly diminishing returns. I personally believe we should have state-enforced wealth redistribution to limit this scenario to a reasonable minimum, but I'm not so naive as to think eliminating it entirely would be the globally optimal solution. In practice, "everybody gets identical protection from pesticides" means "everybody is poor".

[gibspaulding]

In other words, “yes, definitely”. But they won’t because €€€€€.

[psychoslave]

Ideally we would all be exemplar citizen of the world direct-democratic federation, careful of avoiding any compromission and bribery in our wonderful system. Ideally we would all always optimize for sustainability, careful to keep our action in contemporary reciprocal mutual benefits, in the extend that we confidently believe also able to bring prosperity and peace to future human generations.

Concretely, my friend, I'm afraid this is not quite the world the power imbalances lead us to.