Around 80% of Americans have been exposed to the plant pesticide chlormequat, which causes fertility and growth issues in animals, according to a new study published Thursday…

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Sure, but mice and pigs are not humans, which is the point. They evolved to sometimes have different reactions to the same chemicals that we have reactions to. It could very well be that this pesticide does not pose a risk to humans.

    And honestly, we have to have pesticides to feed a hungry world. And herbicides. Especially herbicides, as increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a ‘global greening’ effect as well as a greenhouse effect, which will result in stronger and hardier weeds. We just can’t risk massive crop failures anymore. I don’t like it any more than you do, but there really isn’t another solution. Especially if you want people to stop eating so much meat.

    • Bell@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Okay then what is a suitable animal to test on?

      But pesticides and herbicides are also breeding less robust crops. E.g. corn doesn’t need something to discourage bugs or competitive plants, so it slowly loses that ability. And maybe it slowly loses some of nutrients we want on the way.

      Besides which, isn’t the point that we humans learn to fit into the ecosystem?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s not that the animals aren’t suitable to test it on. It’s fine to do preliminary safety tests with animals. The problem is that the media runs with the story before it’s also tested on humans as if reactions in mice will always be the same as reactions in people, when they often are not.

        • Bell@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          “Hey we’re conducting a study to see if this stuff is fatal or alters your hormones, who wants to be first?”

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Whether or not you find the idea of such a study ethical, it doesn’t make the animal studies any more accurate as to how they affect humans.

            Imagine if we didn’t know whether or not chocolate was safe and tested it out by giving it to dogs.

            Does that illustrate the problem better?

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Nonono, we need to not use horrible fertilizers and pesticides, and when the land is mined out from low-productivity farming on marginal soils, we just clear more old-growth forest to keep up for a few more years. And when we’re out of rainforest, the first people affected by sky-high food prices will be poor brown people, not westerners, so that’s fine.