I’m not a plant, but I’m loaded with tiny creatures that appear to support my overall health yet are hindered by stuff we put on plants. I have no interest in harming them without a clear need to, and studies show that exposure to pesticides can significantly impact gut flora either by outright killing them or causing significant imbalances. This matters, and I’d consider it a reason at least some pesticides are harmful to humans, even if indirectly.

This is a very different (but important) point to the one the OP was making though, which was freely playing with the "it'll totally kill you" imagery in the wording.

People complain when "the other side" is loose with the truth, then freely do it themselves when it suits.

Although we have seen very frequently that pesticides still affect some humans or animals. At this point, shouldn't we just reduce the possible points of failures instead of hoping the next miracle molecule doesn't kill us all twenty years later?

Very frequently?

These chemicals are benign and the media and activists have been scaring people for decades without justification.

I'm shocked Bayer lost and that the plaintiff was awarded anything. Glyphosate has not been shown to cause cancer. If it had, such literature would be paraded out as an evergreen example.

If you want to be afraid of chemical use, it's the overuse of antibiotics that should worry you.

> it's the overuse of antibiotics that should worry you

If violence doesn't work, you are not using enough violence.

Roundup isn’t glyphosate. It’s full of glyphosate, yes. But it’s not glyphosate.

It also doesn’t always break down. Depends on if it binds with anything.

Seems like a distinction without a difference:

"Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide and crop desiccant. It is used to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses that compete with crops. Its herbicidal effectiveness was discovered by Monsanto chemist John E. Franz in 1970. Monsanto brought it to market for agricultural use in 1974 under the trade name Roundup."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

It’s a distinction without a difference if you’re trying to reuse the tobacco playbook and you need people to be confused long enough for your bonus checks to clear.

I think what they are meaning is that the chemical blend with glyphosate causes cancer even if pure glyphosate doesn't. I.e. an inactive ingredient or an interaction with an inactive ingredient is what causes the cancer.

> These chemicals are benign

Sure they are.

> Although we have seen very frequently that pesticides still affect some humans or animals.

“Pesticides” is a class that includes things intended affect animals (insecticides and rodenticides, for instance.)

> At this point, shouldn't we just reduce the possible points of failures instead of hoping the next miracle molecule doesn't kill us all twenty years later?

Probably not. We should probably improve our structures for evaluating, approving, and reevaluating once deployed agricultural chemicals of all types, but should we stop developing new technology in the field? No, we probably should not.

The lack of basic scientific literacy is pretty shocking in the "organic is healthier" world. It's a virtue smorgasbord of "natural fallacy" and "don't eat chemicals" logic.