Wild Bill Posted September 6, 2012 Report Posted September 6, 2012 Exactly. The pros and cons need to be evaluated, including the long term effects, in a scientific manner by non-partisan scientists and pesticide use policy should be formed from that. Currently, pesticide use regulations are very lax and is certainly harming the environment/ecosystem. Like always, we jumped in too quickly without understanding the whole picture. We placed a total ban on DDT and now are responsible for a horrible consequence: http://www.eco-imperialism.com/wrongful-ban-on-ddt-costs-lives/ "According to the World Health Organization, worldwide malaria infects 300 million people. About 1 million die of malaria each year. Most of the victims are in Africa, and most are children." Those million dead children are on the conscience of everyone who supported a total DDT ban. Nobody talked about using DDT only in controlled areas, or of finding ways to reduce any harmful effects. They simply banned it outright and a million children die each year. Boneheads! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
The_Squid Posted September 6, 2012 Report Posted September 6, 2012 Like always, we jumped in too quickly without understanding the whole picture. We placed a total ban on DDT and now are responsible for a horrible consequence: http://www.eco-imperialism.com/wrongful-ban-on-ddt-costs-lives/ "According to the World Health Organization, worldwide malaria infects 300 million people. About 1 million die of malaria each year. Most of the victims are in Africa, and most are children." Those million dead children are on the conscience of everyone who supported a total DDT ban. Nobody talked about using DDT only in controlled areas, or of finding ways to reduce any harmful effects. They simply banned it outright and a million children die each year. Boneheads! Waaaay off topic Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted September 6, 2012 Report Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) What's so funny? As I said, if i'm wrong in my assumptions, prove it with science. Edited September 6, 2012 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
GostHacked Posted September 6, 2012 Report Posted September 6, 2012 What's so funny? As I said, if i'm wrong in my assumptions, prove it with science. I think we will be waiting a while for that information. No problem, he can take all the time he needs. Quote
carepov Posted September 6, 2012 Report Posted September 6, 2012 Maybe I'm being simplistic or ignorant, please correct me if you feel that I am: GMOs have been with us experimentally since the 80’s and on farm since the 90’s. Has anyone died or gotten sick from GMO’s? What’s the big deal? Companies patent and sell GM seeds and farmers choose if they want to buy them or not. Again, what’s the big deal? Pesticides and herbicides are regulated and used safely in Canada and the US– why would I assume otherwise? How many consumers of supermarket food have died or gotten sick lately? What products are people worried about in Canadian supermarkets or restaurants? It is a fact that food has never been more affordable for Canadians. I would argue that food has never been safer than it is today. What would make me think otherwise? IMO people freaking out over Food Safety have grossly miscalculated the risks involved. The choices we make daily like unhealthy eating, smoking, drinking, drugs, driving, sports, etc… are orders of magnitude riskier. Quote
blueblood Posted September 6, 2012 Report Posted September 6, 2012 Yup, yer done here. how so? Has anyone died from a GMO food, aren't people living longer than ever before? 20 years of GMO foods and nothing has happened. Almost 50 years of pesticide use, still nothing... All I know Science has allowed us to produce massive amounts of foods that feed massive amounts of people and help keep a lid on gas prices. Nobody is stopping anybody from going to a farmers market or grow organic foods. Its freedom of choice. Like I say those 6 billion people and gas tanks need to be fed... Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
The_Squid Posted September 6, 2012 Report Posted September 6, 2012 Almost 50 years of pesticide use, still nothing... You haven't looked very hard.... you should check out some EPA papers about bioaccumulation in the environment, among others... to say nothing bad has happened and nothing ever will is ignorant. Quote
Boges Posted September 6, 2012 Author Report Posted September 6, 2012 You haven't looked very hard.... you should check out some EPA papers about bioaccumulation in the environment, among others... to say nothing bad has happened and nothing ever will is ignorant. So why haven't they been banned? Quote
The_Squid Posted September 6, 2012 Report Posted September 6, 2012 So why haven't they been banned? What a simple minded question.... Why hasn't gasoline been banned? Why haven't oil products been banned? Why haven't chemicals show to cause cancer been banned? Why hasn't smoking been banned? WHy hasn't alcohol been banned? Formaldehyde? etc, etc, etc.... Just because something has not been "banned" does not infer that it is a safe product or that it has benign effects on the environment. It also does not infer that we as a society should just keep on using a harmful substance without looking at, and weighing, the consequences of its use. Quote
Boges Posted September 6, 2012 Author Report Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) What a simple minded question.... Why hasn't gasoline been banned? Why haven't oil products been banned? Why haven't chemicals show to cause cancer been banned? Why hasn't smoking been banned? WHy hasn't alcohol been banned? Formaldehyde? etc, etc, etc.... Just because something has not been "banned" does not infer that it is a safe product or that it has benign effects on the environment. It also does not infer that we as a society should just keep on using a harmful substance without looking at, and weighing, the consequences of its use. Well all those things have government warnings on their labels or are highly controlled. My conventionally grown produce does not. Edited September 6, 2012 by Boges Quote
The_Squid Posted September 6, 2012 Report Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) Well all those things have government warnings on their labels. My conventionally grown produce does not. You may want to look at the warning labels on the pesticides in use. Plus, you are not considering the environmental effects of pesticide use, which is not a surprise... I am not the most trusting person of government regulators, especially when it comes to chemical use... call me paranoid, but we can go many years of using something until we suddenly "realize" that it is not actually safe to use. Even if they are considered safe for most people to eat (not everyone has healthy livers that can expel these chemicals from the body) I will avoid them due to my cautious nature and wanting to know where and how my food is grown. I've read the Health Canada pesticide use guidelines on MRL's and testing and I do not think that they are stringent enough. Have you even read them? There are links below to CFIA and the acts/regulations involved as well.... http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pesticide-food-alim/index-eng.php The CFIA analyzes approximately 10,000 samples every year for agricultural chemical residue, to verify that imported and domestic fruits and vegetables are safe and wholesome. 10,000 samples for the entire country for the entire year is practically zilch. Edited September 6, 2012 by The_Squid Quote
Guest Manny Posted September 6, 2012 Report Posted September 6, 2012 Another thing is the impact on the environment from runoff of the chemical ferts and pesticides, and the long term sustainibility of agriculture. Quote
carepov Posted September 6, 2012 Report Posted September 6, 2012 Another thing is the impact on the environment from runoff of the chemical ferts and pesticides, and the long term sustainibility of agriculture. What do you suggest we do about these "problems"? Quote
Guest Manny Posted September 7, 2012 Report Posted September 7, 2012 What do you suggest we do about these "problems"? Me suggest? Just because I point out a problem doesn't mean I have a solution. My suggestion is talk to the experts. Farmers, scientists. Certainly not the salesmen or the bureaucrats. Quote
Wild Bill Posted September 7, 2012 Report Posted September 7, 2012 Another thing is the impact on the environment from runoff of the chemical ferts and pesticides, and the long term sustainibility of agriculture. Well, one thing we have done is to put such constraints on pesticides that it is a given any product an ordinary citizen is allowed to buy will NOT work worth a damn! Frankly, the alternatives we have been left with SUCK! They are a waste of money! Naturally, this doesn't bother anyone who lives in a student dorm but rest assured, if someday they buy a house they will find this out very quickly. Even in a dorm, if they are unfortunate enough to encounter bed bugs they are doomed! The DIY solutions are gone and only placebos are left. The only choice is to hire very expensive professionals for treatments that all too often are only temporary. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
carepov Posted September 8, 2012 Report Posted September 8, 2012 Me suggest? Just because I point out a problem doesn't mean I have a solution. My suggestion is talk to the experts. Farmers, scientists. Certainly not the salesmen or the bureaucrats. Actually my take is that the experts (farmers scientists) are saying that there are no problems with GMOs, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers in Canada. Quote
The_Squid Posted September 8, 2012 Report Posted September 8, 2012 Actually my take is that the experts (farmers scientists) are saying that there are no problems with GMOs, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers in Canada. You haven't read a single paper on bio accumulation of toxins, have you? Quote
MiddleClassCentrist Posted September 8, 2012 Report Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) All right how do you propose we feed 6 billion people and keep a lid on gas prices? You take away pesticides and it's bye bye yields. Technically we should let food prices rise to lower population increases, it the world had cheap access to birth control, it would work. We currently support a population based on 100% productivity/yield, which is a mistake. Edited September 8, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
cybercoma Posted September 8, 2012 Report Posted September 8, 2012 Rising populations aren't a problem. That's been a running myth. Quote
Bonam Posted September 8, 2012 Report Posted September 8, 2012 Rising populations aren't a problem. That's been a running myth. No, they aren't a problem. I would say that declining populations, where they exist, are in fact much more a problem, causing substantial economic issues, as there are fewer and fewer young people to support an ever-aging population. But even being a good thing, rising populations are still a reality worldwide, and food production methods must correspond with that reality. Quote
carepov Posted September 10, 2012 Report Posted September 10, 2012 Technically we should let food prices rise to lower population increases, it the world had cheap access to birth control, it would work. We currently support a population based on 100% productivity/yield, which is a mistake. Your proposal would "technically" backfire! Why do you think that family sizes are larger in countries where there is a lack of affordable food? Quote
carepov Posted September 10, 2012 Report Posted September 10, 2012 You haven't read a single paper on bio accumulation of toxins, have you? No I have not; I would be interested if you could share an informative link. Do you think that the EPA is not doing enough to control the risks of bioaccumulation? Quote
GostHacked Posted September 10, 2012 Report Posted September 10, 2012 www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI4AY88tP8g Something I found just south of Ottawa yesterday when out on the motorbike.20 different new GMO types of canola and soybean. RY stands for 'Round Up Ready'.Check the codes and the PDFs come up online and you can read the stats for each new strain. Quote
blueblood Posted September 10, 2012 Report Posted September 10, 2012 www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI4AY88tP8g Something I found just south of Ottawa yesterday when out on the motorbike. 20 different new GMO types of canola and soybean. RY stands for 'Round Up Ready'. Check the codes and the PDFs come up online and you can read the stats for each new strain. And your missing the liberty link products from their competitors. All I have to say is wow, a test plot like the umpteen test plots in western Canada. Farmers can still choose to grow the old fashioned methods, but why haven't they? Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.