• Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know what I hate about this? In the past, you could very easily vote with your wallet by spending it on organic food, instead of this poison laden crap.

    But these days, food is so expensive that very few have that option, so we pay a premium to these companies who really don't give a damn about us, the planet, or biodiversity.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, if they are even used. Many organic farms don't use anything and/or use considerably less toxic versions to control pests.

        When i was able to afford organic produce on a regular basis , i was getting them from a place that sourced from local farms, and none used pesticides at the time. Sure, you find the occasional bug in your lettuce here and there, but nothing that a good wash couldn't fix. 😂

        • Dearche@lemmy.ca
          ·
          1 year ago

          Local farmers, sure. But from what I know, industrial farmers all use pesticides unless if it's grown indoors. And a lot of the organic pesticides are more dangerous than artificial ones. Especially since the farmers need to use more.

          • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don't believe they are more dangerous, unless the research found otherwise in the last 10 years.

            But i cant speak to the industrial side of things, since i was buying local.

            • Dearche@lemmy.ca
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don't remember which one, but I have read about two different organic pesticides that were particularly dangerous. One had high mercury levels, and the other had something about it that made it illegal to use outright in the EU, but was legally used in the US.

              It's been a while since I heard about this sort of stuff, as organic was only starting to become mainstream when I had originally heard about them.

              • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, I'm sure when the organic biz started to get mainstream attention, there were either some bad actors trying to make a quick buck, or simply not enough data into what was being used, so it wouldn't surprise me if that happened back then.

                But honestly, as long as there are billions to be made, someone will be trying to fly under the radar by using highly toxic stuff which may produce a higher yielding crop. This could be especially true when you have big corporations buying up smaller (and previously ethical ones) to become a monopoly in the space. God knows what deals they make behind closed doors.

              • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                ·
                1 year ago

                It's been a while since I heard about this sort of stuff, as organic was only starting to become mainstream when I had originally heard about them.

                So like 30 years? Organic stuff was getting popular in the late eighties. Maybe it's time to brush up again lol

                • Dearche@lemmy.ca
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  About ten I think. Organic was still pretty niche before then, and only really started to come to mainstream about then, not just foodies and environmentalists.

    • Greg@lemmy.ca
      ·
      1 year ago

      ...instead of this poison laden crap.

      The dose makes the poison. They're taking a science-based process to update the maximum residue limit.

      ...don’t give a damn about us, the planet, or biodiversity.

      Significantly more land would have to be allocated to agriculture to produce the same amount of food without pesticides. That's not good for the planet or biodiversity.

      • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah but what if by increasing its usage, it means that you get more into the underground water supply and you end up with elevated concentration in drinking water because of this?

        • Greg@lemmy.ca
          ·
          1 year ago

          If it's dangerous then obviously stop doing it. But use science to test your hypothesis

          • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            When Syngenta is involved, I'm extremely skeptical that the process is scientific or rather that the variables optimized for are people's or the environment's health. The dose isn't an on/off switch, it isn't boolean. Given Syngenta's track record, I'm guessing that they're optimizing for how much they can sell before the damage is apparent to most. I do believe they're scientifically establishing these amounts.

  • Nagarjuna [he/him]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why settle for being slightly better than America when you could be just as bad?

  • Dearche@lemmy.ca
    ·
    1 year ago

    I understand to a degree allowing an increase in pesticide use (though that'll seriously impact the water quality due to runoff), the only thing that the industry needs to do to reduce pesticide residue is to just spray the produce with water.

    It's just a way to cheapen out the process at the expense of people's health. And I don't just mean the end shoppers', but also all the industry workers along the way. While I imagine the amount isn't a lot, but an increase in pesticide residue that makes it all the way through the supply chain increases how much the workers are exposed to as they handle the produce.

    • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
      ·
      1 year ago

      That's a very good point. Wasn't there a study somewhere that found out that there were levels beyond what's accepted in mothers' breast milk of the pesticide called Roundup? And the reason was that the water supply was completely contaminated?

      • Dearche@lemmy.ca
        ·
        1 year ago

        I seem to recall something like that.

        Frankly speaking, I don't think there's any actively used pesticide that is particularly fine to ingest on a regular basis, even at extremely low levels. That stuff circulates throughout your entire body, and is particularly harmful to both fetuses and breastfeeding infants. And I imagine that pregnant/breastfeeding women are the group that is most conscious about eating healthily, which means tons of fresh fruits and vegetables.

    • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      the only thing that the industry needs to do to reduce pesticide residue is to just spray the produce with water.

      Water is often the enemy you are applying the pesticide to combat; a practice known as desiccation. Granted, it seems everyone's favourite desiccant is no longer on the table for modification here.

        • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I see you've never worked with flour before. Once it meets water there is no turning back.

          Granted, if you catch it earlier, wheat berries aren't that hard to run through the dryer, assuming you accept the environmental and financial cost. Get into beans, though... Good luck.

          If you just mean something like Apples, which don't need to be dry, who doesn't already wash it before consumption already?

          • Dearche@lemmy.ca
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well of course the moment you've processed the crop it's too late to wash them. I was mostly just talking about fruits and vegetables.

            But for grains and legumes, washing them before hulling them shouldn't be a problem. Of course there's the issue of added costs, but spraying additional pesticides is also a cost.

  • BCsven@lemmy.ca
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ask Osoyoos about their high cancer rate from pestices being used on all the fruit and berry farms there.

  • Greg@lemmy.ca
    ·
    1 year ago

    They're using a science-based process to update the maximum residue limit. That's a good thing

    • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I don't care about that argument. They'll say they used science to determine if a company can increase their profits to the detriment of our health and tell us it's good for us.

      • Greg@lemmy.ca
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is Canada, file a freedom of information request, read the peer reviewed articles. Using a science-based process to update the maximum residue limit is exactly what they should be doing. Anti-science conspiracy theories wrapped in cynicism is not helpful.

        • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
          ·
          1 year ago

          No I agree it's not helpful. But in this day and age with the type of capitalism what we're living in, forgive me for being cynical.

          In Michigan, they tried to convince the people that the water had an acceptable level of lead and that they had nothing to worry about. Even Obama came to support the local government on this. And it turned out it wasn't true. They came up with "scientific" evidence to try to prove it. All of this to support a local business that fucked up the local water supply when changing the aqueducts or some shit.

          And I'm sorry but I don't have time to do requests through the freedom of information act and potentially have to fight some bureaucrat because I'm not a journalist.

          • Greg@lemmy.ca
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t have time to do requests through the freedom of information act and potentially have to fight some bureaucrat because I’m not a journalist

            Why do you hold such strong opinions about something about which you are not well-informed?

            edit: also, we need more citizen journalist to help fill the void as unfortunately local newspapers are disappearing

            • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
              ·
              1 year ago

              We DO need more and better journalists that investigate and find the truth and inform people. Right now it feels like media companies all have some kind of agenda and everything is just clickbait to generate revenue.

              • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                ·
                1 year ago

                Noam Chomsky was right. It's called the Propaganda Model of Communication.

              • Greg@lemmy.ca
                ·
                1 year ago

                100% and commercial social media algorithms amplify the clickbait and bury and nuanced perspectives