> if you had lived on a farm; you would know it's really,
  > really difficult to spray a chemical on a bunch of weeds
  > separately when they are infesting your entire crop...

It's difficult, so we should let the farmers poison our children? Writing secure software is difficult, should we accept security issues so the poor devs won't have to work hard? Keeping airplanes in the sky is hard, should we let Boeing crash a passenger jet every year to save some grueling engineering work?

Back atcha!

Farmers know that it's used not only to kill weeds but also as a desiccant just before harvest, to harvest sooner. That is likely the cause of the contamination in the food supply.

> because we can easily deal with all the weeds and such; by hiring laborers.

This, or a combination of laborers and robots. Robotic arms and cameras have come a long way – surely we can invest enough in them instead of conducting large chemical trials on the human population?

luckily these things are getting easier. with spot treatment from drones you can hit areas of crops that are affected by bugs or weeds. blanket chemicals won't be eliminated from soil prep for a long time though.

Yes, the drone approach is very tempting. But I still insist on us removing the need to use of manmade chemicals that don't exist in nature naturally... (That I am aware of...)

For instance, I am all fine and dandy with using lye soap and vinegar to kill weeds. It's not 100% effective, but it's also not going to poison you just because your potatoes happen to be near by. Lye is a tricky example, because it's not exactly always natural, but not exactly always manmade either. You can get naturally occuring sources, etc.

Camel feces is natural, would you eat it? How about hemlock? "Occurs in nature" is a naive metric.