Yeah I concur, economic science is the prime example.

Outside of crop growth we're also way behind on food addatives like tartrizine, which we pump into our children's candy with wreckless abandon, my understanding is the EU banned these additives and a few that have similar long term health effects some years back. I'd rather the industry get in front of these things before the government has to regulate, but I guess we have to do things the hard way. The pessimest librarian in me guesses EU rules would ruin and put off balance many Canadian insustries, and regulations of the big food co racket will be last to happen and be exempt from the US shipping us their toxic foodstuffs recently banned stateside up here. It could easily be worst of both worlds. It makes sense that Canada and US are biggest trading partners, I certainly don't understand the ins and outs of all the trade vortexes across our borders, but I know politicians are milking the show for all it's worth while regular people would love nothing more then for the show to move on and get back to our usual crony capitalism where even the little guy can run a business that crosses the border without a department of wizardry of tarriffs, we miss you guys and we're stronger working together!

Banning Atrazine, Diquat, Mancozeb, Chlorothalonil and Bromoxynil would be a good start. I’ve noticed significantly less pollinator species in the past 20 years, many insects are dying out because of these pesticides. I won’t comment on cancer or other side effects as I’m not educated enough to know the truth, but it seems if we have one large world government universally agreeing that these things are bad, and should be banned, it feels weird that other g7 nations continue on with their head in the sand.

Whoa, at that rate it will be over 100% by 2120.

How much of it is due to other sources of death being addressed?

Yes, that’s not good enough. Rodents are not humans. Then you have to deal with the dose, the setting, the difference in healthy lifespan, and a million other factors that differ from actual people in the real world.

On top of all of that, this paper did no actual research - it just mined existing literature for any chemicals with at least one paper saying that it did something cancer-related in mice or other assays.

Based on prior experience, almost certainly a substantial proportion of these papers are crap, but they don’t make any effort to figure that out (because that would be science, and therefore hard.)

Yes. Rodents are extremely susceptible to cancers.

Might be as high as 57% of all rats developing cancers.

https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/16/3/194/473297/T...

If that's the meaning, the article is uninteresting and meaningless -- telling us nothing new.