[jqm]

Some pesticides are pretty harmful some are really not.

There are many unrelated types of compounds we are talking about here... from severe (and generally now banned) biocides like Methyl Bromide gas all the way to a light camomile tea solution.

It's like your dad saying "drugs are bad!" then proceeding to drink a six pack. Dose and type mean everything. Not all pesticides are dangerous to man nor the general environment.

[specialist]

Some pesticides are pretty harmful some are really not.

The burden of proof is on the advocates of pesticides.

I'm utterly exhausted by the endless hair splitting and PR campaigns. As a consumer citizen, I do not have the resources or wherewithal to determine which pesticides might be acceptible. When negative information is routinely buried, such as the brouhaha over honey bee colony collapse disorder, I've completely lost my patience and confidence in agribiz and its captured regulators.

They can all rot.

[JoeAltmaier]

There is testing, science etc for things like pesticides and residue. The burden has been born and carried to a conclusion. Its new claims that the testing was not good enough that have a burden - its easy to call foul or claim hidden problems, then be conveniently too exhausted to do anything about it. Sometimes its not that problems are buried; sometimes they're not real.

[Retric]

That's a perfectly rational argument, however there is a long history of pesticides turning out to be more harmful than originally thought. There are even commonly used pesticides that are known to be harmful to people that are still in common use with the assumption that the residue is not harmful.

Unfortunately, that's vary hard to test as the population for a study is much smaller than the population effected by any given pesticide. When you include environmental effects the argument generally becomes one of acceptable harm. As there is also a ridiculous oversupply of food there also clearly over used.

[specialist]

...pesticides turning out to be more harmful than originally thought.

Licenses (to sell pesticides) should be periodically reauthorized, given the current best available science. Factoring cost to benefit in the authorization, of course.

Like all these intractable policy issues, at the heart it's about governance. Right now the burden of proof (of harm) is on the critics. That's inefficient and unnecessarily adversarial.

[DanBC]

Bee death suggests that we are not always researching everything affected by pesticides.

[jqm]

This excerpt is from the NRDC.. hardly a pro-chemical group, on the disappearance of bees...

"Scientists studying the disorder believe a combination of factors could be making bees sick, including pesticide exposure, invasive parasitic mites, an inadequate food supply and a new virus that targets bees' immune systems. More research is essential to determine the exact cause of the bees' distress."

Maybe it is pesticides. But stating "maybe" as fact happens all to often and muddies the issue. I would add... bees in this case are domestic bees. Maybe they can be made resistant to said pesticides. Or are all pesticides just bad because they are bad no matter what?

[jqm]

"I'm utterly exhausted by the endless hair splitting and PR campaigns"

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about nor any reasonable conception of the necessities of modern food production.

But ya... it's a conspiracy!

Edit: Apologies. That was harsh and a bit over the top. It's just I get very tired of uninformed rhetoric on the issue. I am an agronomist by training. I have been an organic grower. I was on the cover of Johnny's Selected Seeds one year with a patch of organic chard. I've been a conventional grower. Organic growing has some real benefits.. particularly in preserving soils. But the whole pesticides are always bad thing is simply a modern day superstition. This isn't "hair splitting". We are talking about many classes of very different compounds. They are studied. They are regulated. Maybe they should be studied and regulated more... I don't know, but the world needs technology. It isn't evil.

In short... I reject all forms of unscientific thought when it comes to manipulating physical reality. Superstition starves people. That's the bottom line. Stick to science.

[specialist]

Honest question: Why are neonicotinoids still used? Here's a typical news item of late:

Bird decline 'smoking gun' for pesticide's effects

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28216810

I'm an enthusiastic fan of making decisions based on best available science. So long as the decisions are revisited as science progresses.

Color me skeptical.

Seems like the use of neonicotinoids should be suspended until this mess is figured out. I can't imagine how that's controversial.

Ignoring for the moment that agribiz suppressed bad news. It also seems reasonable that all research is published, both positive and negative. Let the informed "free market" decide.

[jqm]

We have banned many chemicals in the past that were proved harmful and no doubt we will continue to do so. The point is.. the chemical in the article was introduced because it is LESS harmful than it's predecessors (DDT for example). I agree, probably more complete and broader scope research needs to be done before releasing chemicals (and drugs as well for that matter), but with technology you don't always get everything right the first time. Believe me.. farmers don't want to spend any money they don't have to. And I highly doubt Monsanto and friends are out to enslave and poison the world. They are simply producing a product that there is a need for.

There is a level of negative impact we have to accept if we are going to have this many people on the planet. I would note... the chemicals that make your computer monitor colored, the fuels that run your car and heat your home, the production and use of those has severe environmental impacts as well.... much more persistent and severe than neonicotinoids. Short of reducing population or living standards, we are stuck moving forward and cannot go back. So there are impacts yes... we have to work to minimize them, and maybe we should do more, but doing things like calling for an all out ban on all pesticides is unrealistic. Are we willing to accept the death of millions of people due to rising food prices and starvation over the deaths of several species of birds and bees? I don't think we are (well...maybe some of us are and maybe we should, but that's a different topic).

My point is... all pesticides cannot be lumped together. They aren't all the same. We need to do the best we can and maybe that is better than we are currently doing. But we are going to need pesticides. They aren't bad. It isn't a conspiracy. I don't think a company presenting it's supporting research when their chemical comes into question is "suppressing". I appreciate they need to do this. I might add... you can't always get good information from journalists and people who write sensationalist books about the BIG AG CONSPIRACY!. Maybe there does need to be more regulation of big companies, some of them are abusive of the environment and humanity in general, this isn't confined to ag companies... it is a pertinent topic and I don't disagree with you on that.

People really are trying to work on the problem, generally keeping the needs of people to eat as first priority. The whole sensationalist-superstition- unrealistic approach doesn't help and it really boils me because I have been close to the issue. It would be like people trying to ban the internets because OMG HACKERS iz stealing our bankcards!!! Sorry for the hot and aggressive tone earlier... I think I explained my irritation.