|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 27 2013 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
Are you sure about that?
Herbicides have been in use since the 1940s.
And I'm aware of quite a few cases of people talking about how everything was
grown naturally when they were younger, but it turns out folks were using
pesticides left and right.
And what sort of yields and acreage did you have and how much labor was
involved? Less than 2% of the US is currently involved in occupations *related*
to agriculture, and I know first hand how much more work it is to weed fields
than to spray them (ever tried weeding 20+ acres of safflower in midsummer, like
I did a year ago?) That percent would have to be lot higher to provide adequate
yields, and farmers don't get their money off trees. Between the increased
labor and the increased wages that would result, I'd expect to be spending twice
as much on food.
Also, I'll point out that they describe "a tentative pathway" for
autism et al. If I could get a dollar for every tentative pathway that's been
proposed, I could buy a farm. Saying "we can see how this could cause
xyz" is not the same as showing that it does cause xyz.
While chemicals should not be approved blindly, there is a point where one
should ask for evidence that something does occur for the reason proposed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|