Finger pointing and farm chemicals

The report concedes more investigation would be required to exclude all possibilities that chemicals had any role in the nine incidents examined, but strongly suggests this would prove negative in the end.

Given the obsessive character of those who blame farm chemicals, there is a possibility that further studies may indeed occur. Since it is not actually possible to prove a negative, the faintest glimmer of doubt is enough to convince such people that they are right.

That would mean yet more diversion of resources away from determining the real cause, and the possibility that it might turn out to be correctable.

Ultimately, their aim of prohibiting the use of farm chemicals on the macadamia farm and other areas around the fish hatchery would deliver no benefit to the hatchery but inflict harm on the farmers.

This highlights the fact that anti-chemical obsessions are never harmless. There is a price to be paid for adopting an unduly precautionary approach based on prejudice rather than objective evidence.

Perhaps the most glaring illustration of this is the ban on DDT. While there were obviously solid grounds for limiting its widespread use as an outdoor spray, the ban meant it could not be used even when humanitarian benefits outweighed the environmental impact.

Literally millions of people in the developing world died from malaria because it could not be used to control mosquitoes. It took decades for common sense to return, and now more than 12 countries are using it again for indoor mosquito control.

Farm chemicals are safe when used as intended, in the right place and at the right rates. Without them our food would be vastly more expensive and of much lower quality. But some are also dangerous when misused.

One of the characteristics of rational, objective adults is an ability to distinguish between significant and trivial risks. When it comes to farm chemicals that is a qualification many seem to fail.