Talk:Pesticide

Edit plus bot
Did this work? I can't tell. (Also posted at Talk:Genetically modified crops because same thing.) Invasive Spices (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think so. refill didn't switch the ref of :02 to :03 everywhere it should have. Lfstevens (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Neutral POV
I tagged the Development section with a POV template. "[N]ot sufficient" needs to be qualified; not sufficient for what goals, and according to whom? The section also attributes public concern to emotion overriding facts, which reads like a partisan accusation. The phrase "back on track" implies a policy preference and isn't neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexodus (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The referenced article by Diana Cox-Foster et al.(https://www-science-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/doi/full/10.1126/science.1146498) is an article in the Science journal ending with the following, "We have not proven a causal relationship between any infectious agent and CCD; nonetheless, the prevalence of IAPV sequences in CCD operations, as well as the temporal and geographic overlap of CCD and the importation of IAPV-infected bees, indicate that IAPV is a significant marker for CCD." This wiki page, while not completely incorrect, definitely misrepresents and leads readers to believe that pesticides are not the cause of CCD. While CCD is not solely caused by pesticides, pesticides are certainly one of the strong causes with a large body of research supporting this position(one such article from 2012:https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/colony-collapse-disorder-pesticide/). The 2007 article makes no such claim, and in fact only claims that the virus[unnamed in the wiki article but presumably Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV)] is a strongly correlated marker/indicator of CCD. This conclusion was made by Cox-Foster due to the fact that in her 3 year study IAPV was found in all of their CCD bee colonies(count:4). User Rexodus makes a valid argument and the final paragraph of this section should be rewritten without bias. Gijose1 (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Research into new insecticides (rather than development which takes place later) is not slowed or hampered by worry in the public about bee death. New insecticides are being sought by industry as usual. What is true is that bee safety is a must for a new insecticide, and is demanded by registration authorities. The testing against pollinators is therefore being done earlier in the screening cascade. It is then possible to drop at an early stage those compounds which do not show enough selectivity.
 * The reference to bee-toxicity of existing insecticides belongs in the environmental or toxicity sections. Here simply a mention of the discussion would be enough with a link to the neonicotinoid page, where the matter is dealt with in detail. As far as I know all other classes of insecticide are much less toxic to bees.Bosula (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the statement that research into new insecticides is being hampered by public sentiment should not be allowed to stand. The opposite is true. Irrespective of how relevant insecticides are in the CCD problem, the neonicotinoids have been banned by many counties for many applications. The need for new insecticides to replace them is obvious. The financial gain to an agrochemical company is obvious. It is not easy and probably not possible to cite the criteria funding agencies use when deciding on applications. Similarly agrochemical companies do not publish their research budgets. I will try to get data on this matter before attempting to modify the text on this contentious issue. Bosula (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Definition
In the section "definition" there is a long paragraph starting with "Many pesticides can be grouped into chemical families." This paragraph comprises of a detailed description of the use, toxicology and history of classes of insectides, which are all old, and centering on the organochlorines, which were banned decades ago. There is too much detail for a section on definition. The information is repeated in the pages on "insecticide", "herbicide", and it is long out of date. If there are no objections I will replace the whole paragraph with one or two sentences, mentioning that pesticides can be classified into structural classes, which relate to their classification into their modes of action, as usual adding links and references. Bosula (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Sounds sensible to me. SmartSE (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Costs
This heading is ambiguous. It can mean disadvantages as well as financial costs. Both definitions are used in this page. Can we call this section "disadvantages" or "concerns" or something similar, and take out the few monetary bits and give them a separate section? Bosula (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Types
In the section on "types" there is a sub-section on "insecticides" with information on 3 classes. Similarly in the sub-section on "herbicides" a few classes are discussed. This is not encyclopedic, since according to IRAC there are more than 30 modes of action, not including sub-types. Also this is too much detail for the overreaching topic "pesticide", and it is better to include it in the "insecticide" and "herbicide" pages. If there is no objection by Jan. 7th 2024 I will move the text in these subsections without alteration to the corresponding subsections in the pages "insecticide" and "herbicide" Bosula (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. I think on this page it's better just to mention in text that there are multiple modes of action for each type of pesticide without going into exhaustive examples of each while leaving that for the specific pesticide's page. That way this page can remain at a broad overview level. KoA (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)