[Bored chemist]

Everyone know that.

If everyone knows that "quite a lot of plants make their own pesticides", why did you say that "Natural plants grows without these poisons"?

Again, I suggest that you stop posting until you make up your mind.

not sure we can tell them "pesticides"

What do you think the plant makes them for?

Even a child actually know that adding pesticides can at least only make you ill, there is no health benefice at eating them (the pesticides).

A slightly better informed child will realise that, without the pesticides, the pests will eat the food before we do.
Starvation will make you ill and kill you a lot quicker than pesticides.
A slightly wiser child still will realise that some of the most poisonous materials known are produced by fungi, so, if you can add something relatively non-toxic to food in order to avoid having fungi grow on it, not only increases crop yield, but reduces overall toxicity.

Also, you make be shocked to discover this but the materials (like pyrethrin) we use as pesticides are usually chosen not to be very toxic to people.

Furthemore, you try to fool peoples saying that a natural plant is equal healthy then unnatural plants.

No.
I pointed out that there is no such thing as an unnatural plant (I realise that you might argue the toss about GM, but that's beside the point).

Fundamentally, pesticide use has allowed humanity to live longer healthier lives.
I'm not the one "fooling" people.

[Bored chemist]

Myself i suppose why you do that : Because you have worked in the chemical industry and like to propagate false information so as we continue to use pesticides (money money...)

Wrong on all counts.
You should probably stop trying to work out what other people think until you can make up your mind about what you think.

[Bored chemist]

Very few toxic molecules (not sure we can tell them "pesticides"), and that is the conclusion of the study you provided and dident read yourself (or perhaps you dident understand, not sure).

Here's the bit I read.
 "These findings suggested that olive waste waters may be used in agriculture for pests management ".
And here's the paper from which that's quoted.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308814610013117

So that's a scientific report of compounds being suggested as potential pesticides.

[Deecart]

So that's a scientific report of compounds being suggested as potential pesticides.

May, and Suggested.

You can also use salt and call it "pesticide".
https://oureverydaylife.com/salt-as-an-insecticide-12351017.html

Natural olive is healthy and adding pesticides can not make it more healthy when you know how to produce the olives.

[Deecart]

You should probably stop trying to work out what other people think until you can make up your mind about what you think.

Hahaha.
Here you say you know that i dont know how i think myself.
And that nobody should say what other people think.
Sounds totaly nonsense, isnt-it ?

[Bored chemist]

Here you say you know that i dont know how i think myself.

Yes. I say that because it's what the evidence shows.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 19:30:48
In reality, quite a lot of plants make their own pesticides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrethrum

Everyone know that.

And

Natural plants grows without these poisons

So, do you know that plants produce poisons or do you think that they grow without poisons?

And that nobody should say what other people think.

I never said that, did I?

Why did you make up that lie?

May, and Suggested.

That's what I said.

And the olive itself is a potential source of pesticides.

[paul cotter]

Two more for you, bored chemist.: azadirachtin from the neem tree and rotenone from(I can't remember). And the weedkiller phosphinothricin aka glufosinate is a natural product(fungal origin?)

[Bored chemist]

Rotenone is from derris.
The best know is probably nicotine. It's unusual in that, on a weight for weight basis, it's more toxic to people than to insects.
But it has the advantage that you can market it as "natural".
Some people think that natural stuff means it's extra good.

[Colin2B]

Two more for you, bored chemist.:

You could also try Common Fleabane (UK), name indicates how it was used. Relative of pyrethrum.

[Bored chemist]

From the perspective of the plant, every poisonous plant is making pesticides.

Somehow, Deecart has interpreted this as  "

Natural plants grows without these poisons

[Deecart]

But it has the advantage that you can market it as "natural".
Some people think that natural stuff means it's extra good.

This is the old false argument the pesticide industry lobby used for decades so as to denigrate the natural goods.
"We can use pesticide because most plants have "pesticide" to fight agains insects etc.
"So natural plants do not exists, lets spread some other pesticide on them".

Same question to you : Why do you do this?

Are you part of this lobby ?
https://www.e-nema.de/service-en/news/how-the-pesticide-lobby-is-fooling-europe/

[Bored chemist]

Pointing out errors in what you say does not make me an advocate for the opposing view. It make me an advocate for science.

[Deecart]

Fundamentally, pesticide use has allowed humanity to live longer healthier lives.

You definitivly belong to the agroindustry lobbyists.

[Bored chemist]

Fundamentally, pesticide use has allowed humanity to live longer healthier lives.

You definitivly belong to the agroindustry lobbyists.

Why tell that lie.

[Deecart]

Why tell that lie.

It is you who lies.

By chance some poeple are debunking your false claims :

UN experts denounce 'myth' pesticides are necessary to feed the world

Report warns of catastrophic consequences and blames manufacturers for ‘systematic denial of harms’ and ‘unethical marketing tactics’
The idea that pesticides are essential to feed a fast-growing global population is a myth, according to UN food and pollution experts.
A new report, being presented to the UN human rights council on Wednesday, is severely critical of the global corporations that manufacture pesticides, accusing them of the “systematic denial of harms”, “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics” and heavy lobbying of governments which has “obstructed reforms and paralysed global pesticide restrictions”.

The report says pesticides have “catastrophic impacts on the environment, human health and society as a whole”, including an estimated 200,000 deaths a year from acute poisoning. Its authors said: “It is time to create a global process to transition toward safer and healthier food and agricultural production.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/07/un-experts-denounce-myth-pesticides-are-necessary-to-feed-the-world

Here the study : https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF/G1701785.pdf?OpenElement

[Bored chemist]

You said

You definitivly belong to the agroindustry lobbyists.

And I don't.
So what you said was not true.

[Bored chemist]

We are here talking about the olive oil.

an estimated 200,000 deaths a year from acute poisoning

How many of those are from olive oil?

[Bored chemist]

The study here.
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF/G1701785.pdf?OpenElement
fails to address a number of issues.
They say the problem isn't an issue of adequate production of food, but poor distribution and supply.
Pesticides help with those aspects, but that fact is apparently left out of the report.

They say "Despite their widespread use, chemical pesticides have not achieved reduction in crop losses in the last 40 years".
I guess that's true. But it rather misses the point. Without the improved crop yields that were brought about by pesticides  from about 1945 to about 1980, we wouldn't be able to feed the world.
https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields

You will need to find a less biased report.

[Deecart]

How many of those are from olive oil?

Death is the final issue.
How many poeple are becoming sick because of non natural pesticides you mean ?
Plenty.
So,stay away from unnatural plants.

By the way, because you asked how many poeple died from the natural olive oil : 0
Natural olive oil has many benefits on health.
This is in the first study you proposed (and obviously like i previously said, you dident understand it) : The toxicity of natural olive oil has been tested on mises, it is almost null (you need great quantities with very long period to achieve some health problem and i dont talk about death).


 

[Bored chemist]

OK, so... pesticides increase the yield from olive trees (if they did not, the olive farmers would not waste money on them.)
So pesticides make olive oil more readily available, and cheaper.

The evidence shows that olive oil in your diet is a good thing.
Pesticides mean that more people get that good thing.

The evidence for the benefits from olive oil were established by asking about people's diets. They will have asked if they used olive oil.
But they almost certainly didn't ask if they used "organically grown" olive oil.
So the benefits which have been found will be associated with using ordinary olive oil- including the stuff on which pesticides were used.

So, if there were any detrimental effects from the pesticides, they must have been outweighed by the benefits of the oil.

So, if we stop using pesticides then there will be less oil and fewer people will benefit.

Why do you want that?

Do you see that it's not because I'm a shill for the pesticides industry.
It's because I understand  risk/benefit analysis.