> which for regulated cannabis requires destruction
Which regulation is this that requires destroying a nearby crop... instead of the one the pesticide was actually applied to? I'm confused here. Pesticides don't "contaminate" crops in that way, they're literally intended to be use on the food.
I live in NZ where there are medical standards applied to legal cannabis - only recently have I seen dispensaries advertising non irradiated cannabis, presumably because the manufacturing facilities have progressed to no longer require it.
Some of it has to do with combustion breakdown products. Some Canadian producers got nailed with using (directly or indirectly) antifungals with that issue:
Big nope - pesticides are there to repel or kill bugs. A lot of times the recommendation is to wash fruit before eating it to remove pesticides or lead from fuel burned by cars in the vicinity, etc.
Really? I'll mention that to the birds in my neighbourhood.
The seeds and oil are quite nutritious, and the leaves sometimes have a tinge of turpentine that fits well in a vinaigrette salad. It's also common to make cannabis butter for culinary as well as cosmetic uses.
Which regulation is this that requires destroying a nearby crop... instead of the one the pesticide was actually applied to? I'm confused here. Pesticides don't "contaminate" crops in that way, they're literally intended to be use on the food.