• Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’re using a science-based process to update the maximum residue limit. That’s a good thing

    • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I don’t care about that argument. They’ll say they used science to determine if a company can increase their profits to the detriment of our health and tell us it’s good for us.

      • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is Canada, file a freedom of information request, read the peer reviewed articles. Using a science-based process to update the maximum residue limit is exactly what they should be doing. Anti-science conspiracy theories wrapped in cynicism is not helpful.

        • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          No I agree it’s not helpful. But in this day and age with the type of capitalism what we’re living in, forgive me for being cynical.

          In Michigan, they tried to convince the people that the water had an acceptable level of lead and that they had nothing to worry about. Even Obama came to support the local government on this. And it turned out it wasn’t true. They came up with “scientific” evidence to try to prove it. All of this to support a local business that fucked up the local water supply when changing the aqueducts or some shit.

          And I’m sorry but I don’t have time to do requests through the freedom of information act and potentially have to fight some bureaucrat because I’m not a journalist.

          • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t have time to do requests through the freedom of information act and potentially have to fight some bureaucrat because I’m not a journalist

            Why do you hold such strong opinions about something about which you are not well-informed?

            edit: also, we need more citizen journalist to help fill the void as unfortunately local newspapers are disappearing

            • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              We DO need more and better journalists that investigate and find the truth and inform people. Right now it feels like media companies all have some kind of agenda and everything is just clickbait to generate revenue.

              • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Noam Chomsky was right. It’s called the Propaganda Model of Communication.

              • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                100% and commercial social media algorithms amplify the clickbait and bury and nuanced perspectives

    • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Safe Food Matters president Mary Lou McDonald agreed. Accessing the health and safety data the PMRA uses to determine MRLs is challenging due to stringent limits on what data can be seen — and shared — by the public to protect pesticide companies’ intellectual property. She noted issues with the accuracy and relevance of the data used by the government in its assessment process.

      Moreover, she noted the PMRA and pesticide manufacturers have a close working relationship — an issue also flagged by Lanphear.”

      • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mary Lou McDonald is a lawyer from an anti-pesticide charity, not a scientist.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you have anything that refutes her points? Or are you just resorting to the ad hominem fallacy?

          • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Firstly, the burden of proof should be on the person making the claim and Mary Lou McDonald offers no evidence for her claim.

            Secondly, I’m not making an ad hominem fallacy. I’m not attacking Mary Lou McDonald’s character. I’m pointing out that she is not an expert in this field.

            • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s literally an ad hominem fallacy lmao. What is expertise if not part of ones character?

              You are not an expert either, but that doesn’t mean anything you say about it is untrue and should be discarded. If you make a claim the validity of that claim is what should be debated, not whether your credentials are relevant.

              • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I made two points above. Mary Lou McDonald offered no evidence AND she’s not a scientist. Mary Lou McDonald didn’t make an argument and provide evidence.

                That’s literally an ad hominem fallacy lmao.

                This is incorrect. Pointing out that someone is not an expert in a technical field they are discussing is not an ad hominem fallacy. That’s a ridiculous idea.

                Protip: don’t get medical advice from lawyers

                • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  From the Wikipedia page for ad hominem:

                  Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

                  What a “ridiculous idea” lmao

                  • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Righto, get a lawyer to fly your plane 🤣 Qualifications and knowledge of science are obviously relative here