It should be illegal to use fungicides or bactericides with medicinal value in non-human applications, especially on crops. I'm feeling hopeless regarding what our future chances are in fighting super-bugs. Could you elaborate more on why using tea tree oil contributes to drug-resistant Candida?

> It should be illegal to use fungicides or bactericides with medicinal value in non-human applications, especially on crops.

Fungi are one of the big crop killers. Potato blight, black pod disease, panama disease, mildews, … are all fungi.

I can't tell where you're going with this. Are you saying that there aren't enough non-medicinal-value fungicides to use on crops? Did you misread the sentence you replied to?

> Are you saying that there aren't enough non-medicinal-value fungicides to use on crops?

There's going to be a significant overlap between fungicides which don't kill crops and fungicide with medicinal value.

Edit: Let me try rewriting this comment.

Sure, there's overlap. That doesn't answer the question.

Are you making that claim? Or saying that it's likely?

Your comment had a stance for a brief moment, but then you backed up to "overlap exists" which isn't really evidence in any particular direction.

You appear to be really contrarian about this issue (which can be valuable) for reasons unclear to me and from the looks of it the person you are responding to, who you keep trying to peg as being just as contrarian when in fact they really haven't said much that should be surprising.

Perhaps you can explain what exactly your stance on the subject is, and what you think the person you are responding to is saying. Then you can explain why that bothers you, perhaps then this person and the casual reader can take something away from this discussion.

What bothers me is that masklinn is saying statements that sort of imply there should be a debate, but are not actually advancing the conversation at all. They are neither stating a position nor introducing evidence toward a possible position.

Maybe it helps if I go through the conversation:

Neodypsis says we shouldn't use medicinal-value fungicides on crops. A clear position, based on obvious evidence.

Masklinn replies saying that fungi kill a lot of crops. Okay, well taken literally that's already a part of the comment they reply to. Is the implication that we need medicinal-value fungicides for crops? So I ask if that's what they're saying.

Their reply back... refuses to answer. They just say there's "significant overlap", but "significant overlap" is almost nothing in terms of answering that question. There could be tons and tons of usable crop fungicides outside the overlap. Or none. So it's a fact that's useless by itself but deniably implies a position.

And unless I'm going crazy they initially posted with a real position, but immediately edited it out.

So what I see is someone who could contribute to the debate, almost did for a brief flash, but would rather make posts that have no opinion and no relevant facts. Noise instead of signal.

I don't think they're contrarian, I think those posts are some kind of terrible opposite of being contrarian. And I'm not trying to be contrarian, I just want them to clarify. As for fungicides I have no idea, I need more evidence...

I think it's credible to say that they assumed that the reader would understand that if there were only a few antifungals that could be used on crops, they would start working very poorly in short order. That's not exceptional, because we've seen it happen before with other compounds we spray on crops.

Seen through this lens, I don't necessarily follow with your thinking - but I can try now! Thank you for explaining it so well.

The problem with large scale agricultural (ab)use of antimicrobial agents - no matter if against fungi, bacteria or viruses - is that the sheer scale combined with sub-100%-efficiency means that there is a huge evolutionary selection pressure and this breeds superbugs that then get into the food chain... which then cause issues in people with weak immune systems and spread.

IMO, it is preferable to try growing GMOs or alternative crops than putting at risk the effectiveness of medicinal-value fungicides.

What if using them on crops saved more lives, especially right now, by avoiding starvation scenarios in prone areas, farmers from going bankrupt (and upping risk of suicide), etc. It's not a simple problem, you have to do the cost-benefit analysis.

In the short-term, my opinion is we should look for growing different crops, more resistant to fungi or bacteria naturally. In the long-term, we should look into how to destroy these pathogens without putting at risk the limited cures we already have. It is easier to test new, different, fungicides on crops than on humans.

Why would you add an anti fungal to a skincare product? In case the buyer has an infection?

Fungal infections are the cause of most peoples dandruff issues, and the same fungi can result in skin issues in the rest of the face. So probably to kill that off.

It's mostly so the product doesn't mold over. Skincare products are excellent mold cultivation medium: they're stored at ambient temperature (or more), they provide moisture (and are stored in moisture-rich environments) and they're full of interesting nutrients.

Plus most people would ‘double dip’ when using jars so there will be a transfer from the skin into the cream in the pot. If you have a pot which lasts a couple of months that is potentially quite a lot of material transferred from your skin into the dish.

> Plus most people would ‘double dip’ when using jars so there will be a transfer from the skin into the cream in the pot.

As long as the packaging is not single-use or a bottle / tube they're multi-dipping anyway.

And most containers are either completely open or will get filled back with unfiltered air.

That's a good point.