I know a man who has thousands of small plants and uses only natural remedies successfully.
Various methods have different advantages and disadvantages. Such a general remark and reminder: we all have the right to have an opinion on this topic, but let's respect opponents. In my opinion, if any person or group of people in a particular area they want to use chemicals then go ahead, but the food and the area should be clearly marked, so that those who do not want the food and do not want to stay on the ground had knowledge and were able to identify potential danger. Probably if we marked the food (chemical and non-chemical) that almost no one would buy this nice food with a dose of chemistry. At the moment lobbying of the chemical industry and medicine is so strong that even the warnings on the packaging of these products (chemistry for amateurs/farmers) are reduced. This is not right, and from that we should start: require clear marking of food and chemical that we as consumers have a choice. Weave here different theories and philosophies of life there is no special meaning. Everyone makes a choice on their own and can build the foundation of life on their chosen bases - if it does not harm other people (also looking perspective, and given the long-term accumulation of these substances in organisms).
Some minor facts of our lives for beginners and not decisive whether to use chemicals or not used: more or less since 1990 Polish farmers do not use dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (lat. Clofenotanum, DDT, Azotox). DDT used mass of about 40 years from 1950 to 1990, the period of the disintegration of this compound has several decades (40-60 years). The incidence of cancer in Poland increased by approximately 90% since 1990 to 2017. http://onkologia.org.pl/nowotwory-zlosliwe-ogolem-2/
Of course this time increased detectability, but it is dictated by the growth conditions in the part of the environment, food, stress, etc. So the food intake of pesticides at first glance could be of significance. The pesticides used after DDT time - in the years 1990-2017 (obviously also roundup) are substantially stronger than the previous DDT and other, just much smaller amount of based on the same area for the same effect. The problem for the body is not a one-time exposure to chemical but the accumulation over many years, and which produces changes in the body at the time. Fortunately for chemicals manufacturers it lies in the fact that it is difficult to link long-term impact of a particular disease. It demands expensive research that really no one on hand. Governments - because taxes derive from the sale of resources and save money which would have to pay people for long pensions (simply they die fairly young age), medical and chemical corporations for obvious reasons. I only mean "Smith" / "Kowalsky" may suffer for this, but it is often already 2 meters underground where it also reaches chemistry