this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
87 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

217 readers
10 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

It seems like you can still vote with your wallet. It just takes harder voting.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

...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 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.