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.
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.