Its possible I misunderstood your perspective. To me it seemed that you were saying that agricultural products must be proved to be safe before usage. That would essentially be the opposite of today's requirements which are better stated as proving them not to be harmful. It would of course result in extremely negative outcomes, like starvation and death.
Others in this thread state that this is what they want directly, so i may have inadvertently strawmaned you.
Certainly we can find middle ground between the two approaches, and probably should.
Again, its possible I misunderstood your stance. If so mea culpa.
Agricultural products that are not new products can be shown to not be expected to have negative effects (e.g. fertilisers made from food waste). However, there does need to be some evaluation if it's a known toxic product - is it detectable in food produced with it etc.
There's also the problem of companies being short-sighted - they'll happily push a product if they know that it'll make money, but is likely to cause issues further down the line, or in other locations (e.g. run-off polluting waterways).
However, there can be significant environmental harm caused by traditional farming methods too if they're scaled up massively, so I'd say that it's often about trying to find the products that produce the best benefits with the least harm. I'm of the opinion that glyphosate is probably too harmful, but then I'm not a farmer or chemist.
Others in this thread state that this is what they want directly, so i may have inadvertently strawmaned you.
Certainly we can find middle ground between the two approaches, and probably should.
Again, its possible I misunderstood your stance. If so mea culpa.