That people would prefer NOT to believe those with vested interest in profiting from selling things exposed to chemicals isn't an invalid concern.
As another poster pointed out, a lot of GMO crops are altered in such a way that they don't need as many pesticides. Non-GMO often need more pesticides and the GMO label has nothing to do with pesticides - just genetic modification.
If you don't trust me, just ask the FDA: https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/why-do-f...
Monsanto was producing crops that better withstand it's chemicals and China is producing Rice that can tolerate salt water. Clearly China is Innovating to feed it's people while Monsanto is 'Innovating' to boost their share price.
> Studies were included when they build on primary data from farm surveys or field trials anywhere in the world, and when they report impacts of GM soybean, maize, or cotton on crop yields, pesticide use, and/or farmer profits. In total, 147 original studies were included.
> On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.
I've got plenty of E.coli in my gut already, the risk in food poisoning is not that I'll get a few more, it's that I'll get a few more that also produce shigatoxin.
"Things exposed to chemicals" is literally anything you see around you. Water is a "chemical". Glucose is a "chemical". Vitamin C is a "chemical". I don't understand your point.
Also, Hersheys is loaded with lead and cadmium, which is probably bad for anything living.
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-...
I didn't say anything about Hersheys either.
You brought up chocolate. Hersheys arguably is chocolate and the Consumer Reports study is actually about dark chocolate, and all the amazing chemicals in it.
The fact that you are talking about "chemicals" in this generic way is what makes it chemophobia. There can be no serious point in talking about "chemicals" that can't even be defined, it's always irrational.
[1] https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_02581...
Keep in mind these studies are from 1997, the world wasn’t even ruined by the Internet at that point. The studies about humans described in your link are: some idiot drank half a cup of it, and he didn’t die, and the rabbits and mice seem ok. It’s safe! I just struggle, because even at that time these types of anecdotal statements were so dubious. It’s now over 25 years later, so what are the long-term effect?
As a point of comparison, Johnson and Johnson continues to insist that their asbestos laced baby powder doesn’t cause cancer (contradicting reality), so Monsanto now Bayer assurances don’t generate much confidence for me.
I firmly believe science will illuminate the true risks, but it may unfortunately take decades. Time will tell, until then I try to eat organic when I can.
Not 100% sure I agree with that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning
How ridiculous. You should be afraid of chemicals you don’t understand. That’s common sense
One drop of nicotine put under your tongue will kill you deader than a doornail.
Best quality artisanal chocolate can easily kill your cat. Nicotine kills bugs and is benign in humans. Belladonna would kill you, but a goat can munch on it without much trouble. Lots of stuff is lethal to some species and harmless to others, "this chemical is so bad it kills plants" is as rational as "chocolate is so bad it kills cats".