…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.
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?
If it’s dangerous then obviously stop doing it. But use science to test your hypothesis
It is pretty well understood at this point that a significant portion of pesticide runs off into our environment. It is reasonable to assume that an increase in usage will increase runoff and therefore increase risks of contamination.
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.
Stop saying “science-based process,” Greg.
“Safe Food Matters president Mary Lou McDonald agreed. Accessing the health and safety data the PMRA uses to determine MRLs is challenging due to stringent limits on what data can be seen — and shared — by the public to protect pesticide companies’ intellectual property. She noted issues with the accuracy and relevance of the data used by the government in its assessment process.
Moreover, she noted the PMRA and pesticide manufacturers have a close working relationship — an issue also flagged by Lanphear.“
The term “science-based process” is directly from the “Government of Canada moves forward on commitments to strengthen the pesticide review process” press release. I don’t believe in anti-science conspiracy theories. If there are issues with the data being used to make these decisions then that should be addressed but there is no evidence of that. You quoted the opinion of a trained lawyer from an anti pesticide charity, not a scientist.
