🚀 go-pugleaf

 
In ca.politics brockman@netcom.com (daniel brockman) said: 
 
 
>In article <3pd8gp$701@worm.hooked.net> jimbar@worm.hooked.net (Jim
Barrett)  
>writes: 
>>In ca.politics phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) said:  
>>  
>>  
>>>    >makes sense that food that is grown with out pesticides is  
>>>    >better for our health and will be more cost effective in the  
>>>  
>>>Wrong. Most pesticides and herbicides make our food better and more cost
  
>>>effective. For example, potatoes under stress from pests produce natural
  
>>>pesticides that can and sometimes are fatal to humans.  
>>>  
>>  
>>  
>>I think we have a disagreement here that is for sure. I believe that
there 
>>is much evidence to show health risks from the consumption of pesticides.

>>If this is true the increased health costs and decrease quality of life 
>>will outway the shortterm benefits. I will be citing references as I 
>>compile them. We can return to this I am sure.  
>>  
> 
>Food grown with pesticides is much better for your health than no food at
all.   
>The virtue of pesticides is that they (appear to) increase crop yields  
>delivered to the customer.  You get the corn if the pesticides get the
bugs  
>before they eat it. --  
 
 
If starving and having no other food I would eat food with pesticides also.
I know that the use of pesticides has costs in terms of ground water
pollution and probalble health costs that are not included in the price of
the food. I'm also under the impression that using pesticides is more
destructive to land and some of the benefits are short lived when compared
to "traditional" farming. Personally I find the potential health effects to
be enough to keep me from eating food with pesticides.