The largescale manufacture and dissemination of poison in the biosphere needs to stop. And not only in my back yard - paraquat is banned in most developed countries, so the main story here is that how cheap foodstuffs comes off the backs of the health of poor people in poor countries, where our main concern seems to be if the fruits and vegetables have gone though a sufficient cleaning process before it lands on our dinner tables.<p>But regardless of paraquat, modern industrial agriculture is a killing field where shortsighted maximization of returns is offloading an enormous cost to the environment, and to farm workers.<p>At the moment, organic farming is being thrown under the bus in the name of "inflation combatting": people are squeezed to choose the absolute cheapest foodstuffs available in stores (not organic). One way to start could be to give tax relief to all involved in the organic farming supply chain.<p>But what do I know, that's just off the top of my head. We need the scientists, journalists, politicians, farmers and entrepreneurs with a primary interest in health and wellbeing to come together and showcase how we can change course here.
The main risk is to farmers, and is well known. Paraquat is even used to simulate Parkinson's disease in experimental mice; a quick search on Pubmed for "paraquat" and "mice" would confirm this. It seems odd that Syngenta would try to deny the evidence.<p>However, with respect to consumer health, the question is whether any paraquat makes it onto consumer's plates. The article doesn't seem to address this.
And it’s not the only weed killer with issues: <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/24/health/bayer-monsanto-roundup-settlement/index.html" rel="nofollow">https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/24/health/bayer-monsanto-rou...</a>
Sorry for the naive question, and I'm truly asking it honestly -- food grown organically (i.e. abiding by the recognized norms to be recognized as organic) would not be affected by this issue, correct? Using a weedkiller such as paraquat specifically makes food grown this way not organic, right?
Wow. Back in the 1970s, the US government was briefly spraying it on Mexican marijuana fields. I think that there may have been places one could take a sample of marijuana to have it tested. This would have been in 1977 or 1978.
Again and again it happens. This is why the US must adopt the precautionary principle. A substance must be proven safe with data and studies behind it before it is allowed to enter the food supply or applied in such a way that it escapes into the environment via air, water, or soil.<p>This open beta testing with the lives and health of hundreds of millions / billions of people until harm is conclusively shown is immoral and evil. Lawsuits and money cannot bring back the dead or alleviate needless suffering that should've been avoided by putting caution ahead of profits beforehand.
I wonder what the corruption and coverups look like now. Everyone understands how revealing the paper trail can be and I bet retention policies and data governance are used to make the evidence disappear.<p>Should companies like Microsoft get scrutinized for building the tech that makes it easier to hide these types of things?<p>Maybe some of the large pharmaceutical, pesticide, mining, and / or every company over a certain size should be legally obligated to have a lifelong retention policy for their communications.
I'm not saying any of this is alright but can't you just wash this stuff off produce as a consumer? In which case the real health issue is for those interacting with produce before they get to consumers.
When is it going to be obvious? <i>There is no chemical you can introduce to the world that does not impact the health of it's inhabitants.</i><p>I've been realizing it lately. A fish lives in the water it swims in; it is part of the water, it is just a much more opaque murkiness of the water. All living creatures live within a fluid and as part of a biome. If you produce chemicals they <i>will</i> necessarily interact with the biome. The tests our governments mandate for these chemicals, drugs and the like simply aren't enough, every single one of them will come hack with some unexpected (or secretly expected) impact. We have only succeeded when we know what these impacts will be and decided it was worth it.
The executives that put these messures in place all need to face prison time and the company needs to be punished to a degree that all the shareholders feel it.<p>Additionally the fines collected should go towards Parkinsons research and treatment and not in the pockets of the state.
Lock them up and throw away the key. Imagine the amount of people desperately trying to figure out why they are sick, and all the time the very food they eat has been poisoned.