Title: re: Australian famers miffed as APVMA performance nosedives
Thank you, Padraic, for your comment. Hyperbole is used by me in two senses. First, to gain attention and, in this first sense, it is not meant to be taken literally. The second sense is more important. I also use hyperbolic statements to open up discussion. In this latter sense, hyperbole is also used positively, but as an opportunity for translation, which in turn opens up opportunities for fresh thought. Whether lots of hyperbole is too much, perhaps not, as you commented.
Regarding toxicity, my understanding of "more targeted" would be seen in the context of pesticide chemistry as more toxic to the target.
You have understood my argument regarding externalities correctly. If pesticide users were to pay the real social and environmental costs of pesticide use, the levy ought to be increased so the government can afford to pay for health care and environmental cleanup costs.
Regarding research, there are over 1,000 peer-reviewed studies on our webs-site. I have read them. Please use our search engine to find what you need.
I have also written a paper about the double-bind science oriented staff are in at the APVMA have been put in. The paper is available here.
Last, if farmers and other pesticide users were truly using pesticides in manner that did not pollute, there would be no need for this discussion, we agree on that much.