Feds consider upping allowable pesticide residue limits on our food : canada

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 40 points 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.

[-] Dingus_Khan@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago

Also there are plenty of organic pesticides fwiw

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 4 points 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. 😂

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] RedEyeFlightControl@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

You know what I hate about this? Somewhere someone is getting paid to allow the ag industry to slide on requirements, with the end result of people being poisoned. And we have zero say or representation.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] 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 2 points 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 8 points 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 2 points 1 year ago

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

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 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.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

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.“

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Nagarjuna@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Dearche@lemmy.ca 21 points 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 4 points 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 7 points 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.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

We don't know the full impacts of the majority of our industrialized food system. Emulsifiers, perservatives, flavouring agents and pesticides all are relatively new and their effects, impacts, build ups, and mixtures in the human body are not fully studied or understood yet.

[-] Dearche@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

The issue is a lack of money studying them, as the only group with the money to do all the studies needed are the ones producing the pesticides, and they have a dedicated interest in only doing enough studies to prove that there are no immediate issues with their products.

It's a conflict of interest unless if there's more government funding into examining these sorts of things, as there are no other major forces that don't have a invested interest in making sure that the studies make the products look good.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Even then, human lifespans can reach 100 years, some of this stuff simply hasnt existed in our food supply to truly know what a lifetime of consumption can cause. Many of these additives and pesticides are tested to be safe per individual food and the total ingestion control is left to the consuner, who may be uninformed on their consumption rate, especially considering the increasing background presence of these substances in our water and soil.

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

They might just mean wash the final product before shipping it out to the grocery stores.

[-] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 5 points 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.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Restaurants. Just on the basis of how many people eat at those this is important.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Defectus@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

I don't want more pesticides in my food. But more importantly we wanna keep the bees and other insects alive. If they disappear, we disappear. Simple as that

[-] doppelgangmember@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Why? We already have 60% less insects in part BECAUSE of this?

[-] ProfessorPeregrine@reddthat.com 10 points 1 year ago

The guy in the photo can't even be bothered to wear his respirator correctly.

[-] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

I think many here are forgetting we get a lot of our produce and fruit from Brazil, China, etc.

That's who this rule relaxation is aimed at.

[-] BCsven@lemmy.ca 6 points 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 5 points 1 year ago

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

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 17 points 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 4 points 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 9 points 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 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 3 points 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 3 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Greg@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

“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.”

[-] Greg@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Mary Lou McDonald is a lawyer from an anti-pesticide charity, not a scientist.

load more comments (25 replies)

[-] O_i@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Why the fuck would this be a good idea

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

Wait until we switch to a blue government. Regulators and inspectors are the first jobs shed for "small government" so it doesn't matter what the numbers are then because we won't be testing.

[-] O_i@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I guess guerilla farming it is then !

load more comments (1 replies)

Canada

Communities

Rules