Topmost (in use)

Scientists prove pesticides work, and “organic” pest control measures are WORSE than chemicals

Here’s all you need to know, aside from the facts in the case:  a fan of and commenter at the state-owned, far-left CBC website, after having read the story which is so devastating to their whole doctrine and ideology — which goes so against the “science” that the CBC and their David Suzuki division and the whole militant enviro-left have advocated for decades, wrote, simply, “This story sends a bad message.” 

Let’s review that statement:  actual science and facts are once again getting in the way of and possibly wrecking their Orwellian progressive, anti-capitalist political messaging, and more should be done — possibly by government or at least their media divisions — to shut these stories up and prevent them from getting out. 


Yeah it does.  For your phony ideology-based pseudo-science.

Natural pesticides may hurt environment
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 | 11:31 AM ET

CBC News

A new Canadian study suggests natural pesticides could cause more environmental damage than conventional chemicals.

University of Guelph researchers said natural compounds often are used in higher doses than traditional chemical pesticides, resulting in potentially more problems for the water table and other parts of the ecosystem.

“These data bring into caution the widely held assumption that organic pesticides are more environmentally benign than synthetic ones,” said a synopsis of the paper published in the most recent edition of PLoS ONE, an online magazine that publishes medical and scientific research. …

… The study places in doubt the conventional wisdom that has led to the banning of chemical pesticides in cities such as Toronto.

Of course in typical alarmist, knee-jerk, and obviously unscientific but very specious, trendy, politically-correct, left-wing political science fashion — exactly the same in ever way to the “man-made global warming” poli-sci, many cities have already banned chemical pesticides and herbicides, after concluding that “the science is settled” and “the debate is over”.  There was a “consensus” of all the scientists, see.  All of ‘em. 

The very next CBC comment alluded to the notion that the scientists at the (state-owned and state-run) Guelph University are “obviously” in the “pocket” of chemical companies Monsanto and Dow, and alleged that grant money was received by giant capitalist chemical firms, and so there should be an investigation.  By goons in the state, I guess.

“Sounds like somebody’s in Dow or Monsanto’s back pocket to me. … Someone should loook and see if any grants were received from any chemical companies by this university.”

A few comments down, a CBC’er wrote:

“Wouldn’t be surprised to find the study secretly funded by monsanto….”

A few down from that:

“So, two questions: Who sponsored the study? Monsanto or Dow?…”

A couple down from that:

“Was the study funded by Monsanto?”

Another one said this:

“Pfizer, Monsanto, Cargill can afford to pay for this research and those selling natural products without patent protection are religated to the back of the line. Need I say more?”

For the record, if the lazy-ass CBC fanatics and blinkered left-wing commentators bothered to actually read the study, they’d see this:

Funding: The authors acknowledge funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) ( and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs – University of Guelph partnership ( The funders had no role in data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. AAFC suggested the insecticide list for testing, and this is the only role any funders played in study design.

They also go so far as to admit that funding totally unrelated to the study has been received by the research group in the past from all manner of governments, farmers, interest groups, and a variety of companies which produce organic and synthetic pesticides.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
Comments are closed.

It's a question.