Replies

I’m not really sure what that has to do with the pesticides that have been demonstrated to be poisonous to people, for example.

A lot. You eat 5,000-10,000 times the weight of naturally occurring carcinogens as you do pesticides. If the use of pesticides reduces pest attack on food, and the food produces less of these chemicals as a consequence, IT COULD BE HEALTHIER TO EAT FOODS TREATED WITH PESTICIDES than the "organic" product that tolerates a minimal amount of pest damage as part of their IPM program.

Given that plants continue to produce those pesticides in response to the trauma of harvesting, IT COULD BE HEALTHIER TO EAT FROZEN VEGETABLES than "fresh" organic produce simply because the time from harvest to blanching is so short in the process of packaging mass produced frozen vegetables. (Green Giant gets it done in as little as a half an hour).

The question is what is the safe, cumulative exposure to different pesticides.

It depends upon which part of the process you're talking about, whether for workers or for consumers. The fact that we ban pesticides means that there are few chemicals available, which means that the pests can get used to them, which means that we use more. It could actually be safer to use less of more toxic materials in rotation than to use more of a "safer" material because of adaptive genetics in pests. The EPA system doesn't allow for that.

If your goal is a minimally toxic food production and consumption system, taking into account BOTH naturally and synthetic pesticides, the EPA method of regulation is not the way to go. Remember too that many modern pesticides are formulated to emulate naturally occurring chemistry.