"I upvoted your post previously because it was you, but didn't read it or remember the title, sorry. I would have probably skipped over doing this post if I had recalled seeing one already done so well and explained better."
You're free to post on what ever topics you wish. :) I was just teasing you with that (the tone likely doesn't come across in my writing).
"What's nonsense? Poison from pesticides? That we should stop using them?"
The statement above is a blanket statement. Not all pesticides are bad, many have no effect on bacteria (that we know of) or humans. Not all pesticides are harmless either, but that doesn't make them all a "poison" that the body has to deal with. It's not fair to paint everything in purely black and white.
For some reason I missed the part that actually irked me when I copy pasted the quote. " It's all about the money ... Why stop a problem when you can make money from it."
That is not at all fair to the scientists working on this, it's certainly not all about the money! It might seem worse when looking at things from the perspective that pesticides and the like are definitively bad, but the data doesn't support that conclusion as written. Much of this work is done by people who are trying to understand these processes better, and improve the lives of those suffering with diseases, the finding that the microbiome composition has any relationship at all with diseases such as Parkinson's is very new really. Everyone likes to get paid for their work, and corporations do want to turn a profit, but it's not just all about the money...
This document: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/2006/DSF-HEHC-Food1.pdf
has a list of 60 pesticides components banned in other countries, but not Canada, where I live. I was speaking in broad generality, that pesticides in general, are not good for us. Please show me a pesticide you would like to have on your food to eat.
And yes, everyone works, for money. What I'm saying is that research goes on, and they try to look at the specific tree, but don't talk about the forest. It's about more than just this one issue. The forest is how I mention they don't focus on the pesticides themselves, they just keep looking at their one issue, mention the link to other things, and how pesticides "might" be the reason. So, we need to research more to "prove" it definitively. I can see that pesticides are not good for us. And I can see how other dumping of pollutants, chemicals, toxins and waste into our water table, and environment, is not good for us. You don't always need research over decades to prove something that is fairly obvious to deduce. Cigarette claims were true before they were validated, and all the while the corps denied there was any merit of danger.
As with many things, it's all a matter of concentration. Sure pesticides are not in general good for us, but neither are a vast many other things. A pesticide I would like to have on my food I eat? Of course I would prefer they be used in the minimal possible concentrations, however we must also keep in mind that pesticide use has in large part allowed us to drastically increase food production. Is my alternative to pesticide use reduced crop yields? We already struggle to feed the people on this planet. Am I okay with pesticide use under the safest possible conditions as determined by testing with the safest available compounds? Yes I am. Is it going to be on my food? Yes. Am I going to worry about eating that food? No.
There are always going to be pluses and minuses to every action we take. There is no such thing as a perfect treatment medical treatment, nor is their such thing as a perfect pesticide. Pesticides provide a necessary result and that is allowing for food production to be high while keeping cost low. Inherently I do not care about them, and were technologies developed to allow for sufficient yields in their absence, I would be all for those technologies.
There is plenty of work done to study pesticide toxicity, including a variety of methods for modeling things more globally:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27905518
Not all work is good, and indicates that certain pesticides can be harmful:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27887783
But much of this is still all a matter of concentration, and it would appear that given appropriate study we can determine amounts that allow for effective use of compounds, while not being harmful:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27913071
I maintain my statement that it is imperative to not consider these things using completely black and white terms. They are not entirely bad, but not entirely safe. Certain compounds have greater risks then others, and currently their use is necessary.
Yeah I agree, concentration is an issue. It also becomes inevitable through bio-amplification of regular consumption. I would like society use alternative methods of growing food, that indeed, may cost more, at least at first. But overtime, perhaps that would require a radical change to how we live in general, such as including food forests and permaculture around our communities everywhere.