P.S. these things “” are quotation marks. It helps to determine if they are directly quoting someone else. my “use of the suffix” (see quote) was not my own so I’m not sure how it was my use

I confess that your nonsense is hard to keep up with. I quoted someone else saying all herbicides were like agent orange, which is nonsense. You apparently decided to double down on that by saying “things are the same except for being different”

The -esque has nothing to do with your claim, so forgive me for not…

in the scientific context, -esque doesn’t mean anything. However, what you said was “Roundup is a herbicide, just like Agent Orange is, though of a different chemistry.”

This is a still a meaningless comparison and does not use -esque

you probably dump copper sulfate on your plants and pat yourself on the back for using safe organic chemicals.

how about safer than basically any other pesticide used in agriculture?

it is almost like you didn’t even understand your own originating comment. If two things have different chemistry they are different. You can’t say things are alike except for being different. Take high school science and then come back.

but your average consumer is just going to see a label that says “organic” without investigating the certification requirements.

There is no doubt that Mexico grows a lot of fruits and vegetables, nor that they grow a lot of organic to target the export market. That, however, is a far cry from saying all of Mexico doesn’t use pesticides because a) nowhere does the article say all of Mexico is organic and b) there are organic certified…

I agree with careful control and oversight, and in fact many current pesticides like roundup require much lower levels of application per unit area and time than traditional pesticides, which is a good thing. I was responding to the many that chime in and say “see they are bad must quit using them” and who are also…

you could start with the many dozens of published studies.

you also said “humanity’s use of pesticides was blindly assumed to be safe without even bothering to check”

“without even bothering to check” certainly sounds like you are discounting the large amount of testing that has been performed.  

I’m just repeating what you argued.

which harmful ones has monsanto forced the use of? Does monsanto force you to use copper sulfate? Oh wait, that is an organic pesticide that has a much higher LD50.

Maybe because you have more than once on this very thread alleged that pesticides were presumed safe without any testing. So forgive me for taking your statements at face value. At least I’m using your actual words rather than arguing with imagined statements.

I don’t know why you insist on putting words in my mouth. I never said there was no reason to test nor did I say that all prior testing was adequate. All I’ve said is that the article is only suggesting an expansion of testing while the Jez post suggests that pesticides are harmful, which is not what the Science post…

“ idea of not caring about what we’re doing to the environment because “at least it’s better than it was in the 1950's” does not hold water with me”

That is fine since it is another argument of straw.  

“Do you think we shouldn’t even do any research on it”

Funny that someone complaining of pedantry relies on such a blatant straw man.

You act as if there has never been any research on glyphosate and that it is a novel idea to investigate it.  

“Mexico’s farms don’t use chemical pesticides and that’s where 50% of your food comes from, a country 1/5 the size.”

citation please.  

indeed.

Water is a liquid like alcohol, just of a different chemistry.