Tim Tyler writes
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:

: The same is not true of man-made insecticides, pesticides and fungicides.

: Of course not - they've not evolved to harm anything that eats them, indeed
: they've been designed not to.

More to the point, they've been designed to make the chemical corps money.

So what do you think they should do, produce them as a public service?

Don't be a prat.

To that end, they are invisible to consumers - and likely do the minimum
necessary to pass regulator's safety standards.

Since the regulator's standards (UK, certainly) are horribly tough,
that's true of some pesticides. Remember the typical cost to do the work
required by the regulator costs 50M UKP. That is, it's very very
thorough indeed.

Hardly surprising, the manufacturer and regulators get to eat the
produce they approve.

: All in all it's better to eat meat - animals generally defend themselves by
: running away rather than producing toxins, so all you need is a means of
: catching them.

Not logical. You can't conclude it's better to eat meat because it can
run away.

I see you have missed the point completely.

Meat is higher up the food chain for one thing - and thus will concentrate
environmental toxins.

But not pesticides, because they are biodegradeable - a requirement.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.