USA lags behind EU, Brazil and China in banning harmful pesticides(phys.org)
phys.org
USA lags behind EU, Brazil and China in banning harmful pesticides
https://phys.org/news/2019-06-usa-lags-eu-brazil-china.html
73 comments
It's also conceivable that enforcement isn't as thorough. While China did eventually raid the factories responsible for CFC-11, it took the international community pinpointing where it was coming from.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44738952
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44738952
Pesticides are the ultimate culprits that harm human and all biological life. Unfortunately things like plastic ban occupy mindshare. Unlike plastics pesticides like Glyphosate get 'locked' into the body --- meaning your body cannot wash them out through its usual means --- resulting in cancer and what not.
Is it really a zero sum game when two different issues are pitted against each other like this? Hopefully people will develop better intuition about other similar issues.
> Unlike plastics pesticides like Glyphosate get 'locked' into the body --- meaning your body cannot wash them out through its usual means --- resulting in cancer and what not.
This is utter nonsense. Glyphosate doesn't get "locked" into the body.
This is utter nonsense. Glyphosate doesn't get "locked" into the body.
All those people who worry about plastic straws while wearing cotton t-shirts.
https://organiccotton.org/oc/Cotton-general/Impact-of-cotton...
https://www.theworldcounts.com/counters/cotton_environmental...
https://organiccotton.org/oc/Cotton-general/Impact-of-cotton...
https://www.theworldcounts.com/counters/cotton_environmental...
Microplastics do not wash out of your body...
edit: also glyphosate is not a pesticide
edit: also glyphosate is not a pesticide
Glyphosate is absolutely a pesticide. It's an herbicide, which is a type of pesticide.
And AFAICT, glyphosate doesn't pose a significant risk to humans in the amounts people would normally be exposed to. It's really quite harmless. However, it can become more harmful when mixed with other chemicals, but honestly, the other chemicals are probably more harmful than it.
And AFAICT, glyphosate doesn't pose a significant risk to humans in the amounts people would normally be exposed to. It's really quite harmless. However, it can become more harmful when mixed with other chemicals, but honestly, the other chemicals are probably more harmful than it.
[deleted]
Because harmful pesticides are easy money and easy money trumps health. At least, that is what everybody thinks when looking at the USA.
One expects the US to be behind the EU, a place generally more concerned with the welfare of its citizens than the US, where corporate profits are King.
But when we fall behind Brazil and China, too, alarm bells should be ringing -- if they weren't, already, over US infant mortality soaring past that in dozens of other countries, or life expectancy reverting to a persistent downward trend.
You don't get declining life expectancy without really concerted mismanagement and corruption at the top.
But when we fall behind Brazil and China, too, alarm bells should be ringing -- if they weren't, already, over US infant mortality soaring past that in dozens of other countries, or life expectancy reverting to a persistent downward trend.
You don't get declining life expectancy without really concerted mismanagement and corruption at the top.
China isn’t really a rule of law country, so they have the option of banning things without really banning them (the law can be on the books but enforced only very seductively that most people ignore it). I’m not sure about Brazil, but in general it is very difficult to compare a developed country with a developing one.
>China isn’t really a rule of law country
I don't know about that, slightly unrelated but I'm 4 times less likely to get murdered in China than in the USA.
The population seems to adhere to laws against harming fellow humans better than we do in the USA.
I don't know about that, slightly unrelated but I'm 4 times less likely to get murdered in China than in the USA.
The population seems to adhere to laws against harming fellow humans better than we do in the USA.
That has nothing to do with rule of law. Laws are definitely enforced on China, it’s just up to the officials on what laws to enforce when and on whom.
They will enforce pesticide bans, for example, on farmers they don’t like or where it is politically convenient to do so. Likewise, one can get away with murder if they are politically connected enough and in good grace (well, until the publicity gets bad and they become pariahs like Bo Xilai).
They will enforce pesticide bans, for example, on farmers they don’t like or where it is politically convenient to do so. Likewise, one can get away with murder if they are politically connected enough and in good grace (well, until the publicity gets bad and they become pariahs like Bo Xilai).
"Rule of law" is a name attributed to societies where laws are supreme (no-one is above the law), and where the same crime results in the same sentence, no matter who you are.
Western societies pride themselves as abiding by the rule of law, and it is an important ideal IMO, but the application in reality is more on a Bell curve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
Western societies pride themselves as abiding by the rule of law, and it is an important ideal IMO, but the application in reality is more on a Bell curve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
>Western societies pride themselves as abiding by the rule of law, and it is an important ideal IMO, but the application in reality is more on a Bell curve.
I agree that the rule of law is a nice ideal, but there appears to be an emerging split between the effectiveness of rule of law systems and their proposed values.
The historical arguments were not just that the rule of law is ethical, but also that it is effective at delivering for its citizens. So when the OP points to murder rates or the article points to atrocious health standards that fall below even middle-income trap countries, then that doesn't exactly fill me with optimism.
I agree that the rule of law is a nice ideal, but there appears to be an emerging split between the effectiveness of rule of law systems and their proposed values.
The historical arguments were not just that the rule of law is ethical, but also that it is effective at delivering for its citizens. So when the OP points to murder rates or the article points to atrocious health standards that fall below even middle-income trap countries, then that doesn't exactly fill me with optimism.
>societies where laws are supreme (no-one is above the law), and where the same crime results in the same sentence, no matter who you are...
If that's the definition then, um, yeah, I think "bell curve" is a very diplomatic term for the de facto reality in Western Nations. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the de facto reality in all nations, Western or not, falls well short of this rule of law ideal.
I've no evidence to support the following suspicion, but I think whenever humans are involved in a system, all of those well known human failings we have are going to manifest themselves in that system's output. I don't think there is a way around it actually.
In practice, there probably is no society governed by rule of law if equal treatment is going to be your measuring stick. I honestly don't think such a place exists.
If that's the definition then, um, yeah, I think "bell curve" is a very diplomatic term for the de facto reality in Western Nations. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the de facto reality in all nations, Western or not, falls well short of this rule of law ideal.
I've no evidence to support the following suspicion, but I think whenever humans are involved in a system, all of those well known human failings we have are going to manifest themselves in that system's output. I don't think there is a way around it actually.
In practice, there probably is no society governed by rule of law if equal treatment is going to be your measuring stick. I honestly don't think such a place exists.
Rule of law isn’t a binary. It is an ideal that a country aspires to to whatever degree.
Thing is, the current Chinese government sees “rule of law” completely undesirable as a concept, judiciary must acquiesce to the official class (which is synonymous with the party), whose opinion is the only one that matters.
Thing is, the current Chinese government sees “rule of law” completely undesirable as a concept, judiciary must acquiesce to the official class (which is synonymous with the party), whose opinion is the only one that matters.
>...judiciary must acquiesce to the official class (which is synonymous with the party), whose opinion is the only one that matters.
Since we've gone down this rabbit-hole, doesn't that mean or infer that the states is no longer a "rule of law" country, since the current idyllic seems to be overturning laws - based purely on political alignment (e.g.: the "sudden rash" of states banning abortion because the end-goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade)?
Since we've gone down this rabbit-hole, doesn't that mean or infer that the states is no longer a "rule of law" country, since the current idyllic seems to be overturning laws - based purely on political alignment (e.g.: the "sudden rash" of states banning abortion because the end-goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade)?
Nobody cares if you get killed in China. They need to pay less if you die then if you're wounded. So they run you over again to be sure that you are dead.
Video surveillance isn't launching everywhere, because of corrupcy.
And they don't care about foreigners ( with something happens). Chinese protects Chinese, no one else. They will also work with favors above law.
Video surveillance isn't launching everywhere, because of corrupcy.
And they don't care about foreigners ( with something happens). Chinese protects Chinese, no one else. They will also work with favors above law.
"Nobody cares if you get killed in China"
Whatever evidence you're using to support this assertion, I'm sure theres equal evidence from any other country.
Whatever evidence you're using to support this assertion, I'm sure theres equal evidence from any other country.
Here's an example, not the article that opinionated me in the past though. Since that was more a discussion about Chinese "culture", it was an fictive example there that happens regularly.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2123499/chin...
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2123499/chin...
hmm... I invite you to visit China at least once before stating above like facts...
> I’m not sure about Brazil, but in general it is very difficult to compare a developed country with a developing one.
The context for Brazil is mostly that it is a democracy from 1888 til nowadays, but with a shadow institutional period from the 60´s to the mid-eighties.
So the country had to rebuild it´s own institutions from the eighties til now, to serve a democracy instead of serving the wills of a dictatorship.
Now, its in a point of testing its institutional maturity, and the rule of law, by the ongoing crackdown on corruption and organized crime. A lot of big political figures from all sides (and executives) are in jail right now, and theres a current crackdown going on in the organized crime front.
But the big test right now is the current Brazilian government with its backwards policy. Will the organized institutions from the society, and the other powers besides the executive able to make a stand against going backwards?
Theres a big test going on in Brazil right now, if 'we' are able to pass this dangerous phase and still have the democratic institutions and balances in one piece, than i guess it will probably move foward and get stronger with time.
In this sense also, the US was lucky to have England as a cultural parent, because England was/is great in making solid institutions. From government to the academy.
The colonization process of the countries colonized by the spanish and the portugueses, were mostly a vampire-like kind of relation. Where they took everything they could, leaving a trail of exploitation and slavery behind.
The portuguese colonizers even used to forbid Brazil of the colonial/empire era to have a University, which we only manage to create the first one here in the 20´s.
Anyway, i guess the answer to the rule of law, is both; is "good enough for most things", and "we are getting there". Not something to be proud of, not something very advanced, but not bad either..
The context for Brazil is mostly that it is a democracy from 1888 til nowadays, but with a shadow institutional period from the 60´s to the mid-eighties.
So the country had to rebuild it´s own institutions from the eighties til now, to serve a democracy instead of serving the wills of a dictatorship.
Now, its in a point of testing its institutional maturity, and the rule of law, by the ongoing crackdown on corruption and organized crime. A lot of big political figures from all sides (and executives) are in jail right now, and theres a current crackdown going on in the organized crime front.
But the big test right now is the current Brazilian government with its backwards policy. Will the organized institutions from the society, and the other powers besides the executive able to make a stand against going backwards?
Theres a big test going on in Brazil right now, if 'we' are able to pass this dangerous phase and still have the democratic institutions and balances in one piece, than i guess it will probably move foward and get stronger with time.
In this sense also, the US was lucky to have England as a cultural parent, because England was/is great in making solid institutions. From government to the academy.
The colonization process of the countries colonized by the spanish and the portugueses, were mostly a vampire-like kind of relation. Where they took everything they could, leaving a trail of exploitation and slavery behind.
The portuguese colonizers even used to forbid Brazil of the colonial/empire era to have a University, which we only manage to create the first one here in the 20´s.
Anyway, i guess the answer to the rule of law, is both; is "good enough for most things", and "we are getting there". Not something to be proud of, not something very advanced, but not bad either..
>in general it is very difficult to compare a developed country with a developing one.
I don't know about that. Is done all the time. Also, 'developing/developed' is a incredibly crude taxonomy with few useful contexts and a very fuzzy border.
I don't know about that. Is done all the time. Also, 'developing/developed' is a incredibly crude taxonomy with few useful contexts and a very fuzzy border.
Not to mention, economic development is not the only factor that determines if a country is doing well for it's citizens.
Heck, what people regard as a country "doing well" is different between different countries and their cultures.
Heck, what people regard as a country "doing well" is different between different countries and their cultures.
> I’m not sure about Brazil
In Brazil most federal inspection agencies are under funded and short on staff, limiting their operations. Offering bribe to inspection agents is also very common but risky since the government has been pushing a campaign and reforms against systemic corruption for the past few years.
In Brazil most federal inspection agencies are under funded and short on staff, limiting their operations. Offering bribe to inspection agents is also very common but risky since the government has been pushing a campaign and reforms against systemic corruption for the past few years.
> so they have the option of banning things without really banning them
Anyone who spent more then 30 seconds observing motorists on a freeway highway will know that this sort of selective enforcement is not limited to China.
Anyone who spent more then 30 seconds observing motorists on a freeway highway will know that this sort of selective enforcement is not limited to China.
Motorists in China are much worse than what you think is bad in the states.
> the law can be on the books but enforced only very seductively that most people ignore it
I think the issue of enforcement should be separated to the issue of the spirit of the "rule of the law".
I think the issue of enforcement should be separated to the issue of the spirit of the "rule of the law".
Selectively, not seductively.
In general, Brazil has been quite strict with controlling pesticides because we depend a lot on the rich countries to want to buy our products.
The current government, not so much. The president has appointed a Minister of Agriculture that is known as the "Poison Muse". We shall see how that goes but there's a tendency of conflating liberalism with not having any rules that is getting scary with the current administration (e.g. taxes are the system crushing entrepreneurs, traffic laws are a "fee industry", everybody should have a gun, etc)
The current government, not so much. The president has appointed a Minister of Agriculture that is known as the "Poison Muse". We shall see how that goes but there's a tendency of conflating liberalism with not having any rules that is getting scary with the current administration (e.g. taxes are the system crushing entrepreneurs, traffic laws are a "fee industry", everybody should have a gun, etc)
>One expects the US to be behind the EU, a place generally more concerned with the welfare of its citizens than the US, where corporate profits are King.
It's real easy to ban things that make it easier to farm when you don't got much farming.
It's real easy to ban things that make it easier to farm when you don't got much farming.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, the agricultural sector in Europe is rather strong. The US is the world's top exporter of food, but the Netherlands come second.
Europe's agriculture sector is strong largely because of tariff and political protections that keep out competition. The EU's agriculture tariffs are about 100% higher than the US.
The US and Australia have the lowest agriculture tariffs of any major economies or groups such as the EU. Drastically lower in fact. Russia for example - a wheat juggernaut now - has agriculture tariffs over 3x that of the US.
The US and Australia have the lowest agriculture tariffs of any major economies or groups such as the EU. Drastically lower in fact. Russia for example - a wheat juggernaut now - has agriculture tariffs over 3x that of the US.
the CAP is their for good reason though.
Having your own food supply is far more important then having a free agricultural market. Also, it's not like the US is not guilty of this either, just look at it's massive corn subsidies.
Having your own food supply is far more important then having a free agricultural market. Also, it's not like the US is not guilty of this either, just look at it's massive corn subsidies.
[deleted]
US lags behind rest of world in X, due to political inertia.
Don’t wake me up please.
Don’t wake me up please.
Such pesticides and other toxic chemicals not only cause cancer, but they also explain the increasing infertility in the West as explainable by germline damage in both men and women. This should worry you a lot. Please refer to:
[1] Assessment of Glyphosate Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm Epimutations: Generational Toxicology. (2019)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31011160
> The transgenerational pathologies observed include prostate disease, obesity, kidney disease, ovarian disease, and parturition (birth) abnormalities. Epigenetic analysis of the F1, F2 and F3 generation sperm identified differential DNA methylation regions (DMRs). A number of DMR associated genes were identified and previously shown to be involved in pathologies. Therefore, we propose glyphosate can induce the transgenerational inheritance of disease and germline (e.g. sperm) epimutations. Observations suggest the generational toxicology of glyphosate needs to be considered in the disease etiology of future generations.
[2] Environmental toxicant induced epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of ovarian pathology and granulosa cell epigenome and transcriptome alterations: ancestral origins of polycystic ovarian syndrome and primary ovarian insuffiency. (2018)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30207508
[3] The epigenetic impacts of endocrine disruptors on female reproduction across generations. (2019)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31077281
[1] Assessment of Glyphosate Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm Epimutations: Generational Toxicology. (2019)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31011160
> The transgenerational pathologies observed include prostate disease, obesity, kidney disease, ovarian disease, and parturition (birth) abnormalities. Epigenetic analysis of the F1, F2 and F3 generation sperm identified differential DNA methylation regions (DMRs). A number of DMR associated genes were identified and previously shown to be involved in pathologies. Therefore, we propose glyphosate can induce the transgenerational inheritance of disease and germline (e.g. sperm) epimutations. Observations suggest the generational toxicology of glyphosate needs to be considered in the disease etiology of future generations.
[2] Environmental toxicant induced epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of ovarian pathology and granulosa cell epigenome and transcriptome alterations: ancestral origins of polycystic ovarian syndrome and primary ovarian insuffiency. (2018)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30207508
[3] The epigenetic impacts of endocrine disruptors on female reproduction across generations. (2019)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31077281
too bad glyphosate isn't one of the chemicals listed in the article.
Perhaps because it is not banned currently. It is scheduled to be banned in 2022 by the EU parliament.
So what is the safer alternative to Glyphosate?
"One study found that not using pesticides reduced crop yields by about 10%"[0]
That's not terribly bad. There are also communities of organic farmers working on methods to improve yields without pesticides. There is a lot still to be learned (and re-learned) about crop cycling, for example. Other ideas are mixed fields with different crops, new tilling protocols etc.
Some pesticides are also legal under different certification schemes. Sulfur, for example, is the most used pesticide in the EU. Pyrethroid is allowed under some schemes, and it's actually a drug approved for human use (lice), and therefore (and because it's rather old) thought to be safe at the far lower doses one is exposed to via the food chain.
The chart https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pflanzenschutzmittel#/media/Da... is also rather interesting, in that it shows highly diverging use of pesticides and fertilizers across EU countries. There is no definitive pattern here, with Sweden and the Netherlands as the extremes on opposite sides, two countries that are rather similar both in economics as well as climate. Spain/Italy/Portugal might be high because they have much larger shares of multi-year crops such as wine and olive trees, while yearly crops such as corn and wheat are less susceptible because the diseases die with the plants every year. OTOH, at least olives aren't fertilized I believe.
What's also interesting is the positive correlation between pesticide use and fertilizer use. I expected the opposite, i. e. farmers compensating for expected losses to disease with increased fertilizer and vice versa. This not happening may point at a cultural issue at play here, with some farmers choosing these tools excessively, or maybe a lack of knowledge of alternatives.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide#Benefits
That's not terribly bad. There are also communities of organic farmers working on methods to improve yields without pesticides. There is a lot still to be learned (and re-learned) about crop cycling, for example. Other ideas are mixed fields with different crops, new tilling protocols etc.
Some pesticides are also legal under different certification schemes. Sulfur, for example, is the most used pesticide in the EU. Pyrethroid is allowed under some schemes, and it's actually a drug approved for human use (lice), and therefore (and because it's rather old) thought to be safe at the far lower doses one is exposed to via the food chain.
The chart https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pflanzenschutzmittel#/media/Da... is also rather interesting, in that it shows highly diverging use of pesticides and fertilizers across EU countries. There is no definitive pattern here, with Sweden and the Netherlands as the extremes on opposite sides, two countries that are rather similar both in economics as well as climate. Spain/Italy/Portugal might be high because they have much larger shares of multi-year crops such as wine and olive trees, while yearly crops such as corn and wheat are less susceptible because the diseases die with the plants every year. OTOH, at least olives aren't fertilized I believe.
What's also interesting is the positive correlation between pesticide use and fertilizer use. I expected the opposite, i. e. farmers compensating for expected losses to disease with increased fertilizer and vice versa. This not happening may point at a cultural issue at play here, with some farmers choosing these tools excessively, or maybe a lack of knowledge of alternatives.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide#Benefits
Organic (natural) pesticides tend to be safer. Unfortunately, USDA has been doing a terrible job with their USDA Organic certification. It is firstly very expensive. Secondly, it is no guarantee that glyphosate is not present. This could be due to fraud or negligence. Third, it is subject to lobbying to legalize nasty synthetic pesticides as being Organic. The USDA needs to step up and do its job.
Meanwhile, I nevertheless advocate buying Organic. Use a warm solution of baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) in which to dissolve fruits like apples and others for 12-15 minutes. It helps dissolve a fair portion of the pesticides, but is not a substitute for buying Organic. Refer to https://suppversity.blogspot.com/2017/10/nahco3-aka-baking-s...
Meanwhile, I nevertheless advocate buying Organic. Use a warm solution of baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) in which to dissolve fruits like apples and others for 12-15 minutes. It helps dissolve a fair portion of the pesticides, but is not a substitute for buying Organic. Refer to https://suppversity.blogspot.com/2017/10/nahco3-aka-baking-s...
> Organic (natural) pesticides tend to be safer.
This is patently false. Natural pesticides and herbicides are almost always more toxic to humans than synthetic pestices and herbicides, in large part because minimizing human toxicity is one of the goals in the chemical research programs.
This is patently false. Natural pesticides and herbicides are almost always more toxic to humans than synthetic pestices and herbicides, in large part because minimizing human toxicity is one of the goals in the chemical research programs.
What are some examples of organic pesticides that are less safe than glyphosate?
Copper sulfate is one.
Copper Sulfate is toxic to birds, mammals, insects, etc. It has a lower LD50 than glyphosate.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/03/20/far-more-toxic...
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/03/20/far-more-toxic...
The funny thing is that copper sulphate is actually an inorganic substance while glyphosate is an organic substance.
Sorry, layman here, but in what sense is a substance with a name like that "organic"? It neither sounds natural nor does it contain carbon to be called organic in the chemistry sense...
This is "organic" in the sense of "approved for use in organic agriculture." Which generally means "no icky multinational chemical firms that [average lay person] is aware of had a hand in the manufacture of it."
Oh I see, so like "organic" in quotes, not organic in the sense most people would expect it to be organic (natural etc.).
(anecdotal:) Most people all over the world think 'organic' when it's not about organic chemistry or a list of 'approved' things or a label some agency sticks on things that are considered 'organic'. Organic in the sense of organic pesticides are the kinds of pesticides that you'd find in the wild, without them being man-made. That doesn't exclude synthetic replication, because if you can mass-produce that thing that was already there anyway, that's a good way making it available for more uses. That said, some 'organic pesticides' may be introducing an insect that is a predator to the insect you are trying to get rid of. While a 'pest' in 'pesticide' doesn't mean just insects, you usually have organic predators that don't harm your produce while hunting the pest that does attack it.
Say you have a fungus that eats at your corn, maybe there is another one that just eats that fungus but leaves the corn alone. Or maybe you have some insect that eats your wheat, and some naturally occurring compound exists that is bad for the exoskeleton of that insect; put compound (found naturally or replicated synthetically) on the wheat, insects will be sad/dead/gone, there ya go, organic pesticide.
Those natural, or, organic pesticides usually evolved with some specific target in mind, while man-made pesticides are more like chemo therapy: kill as much as possible without killing the produce we want. This has the downside that killing as much as possible actually kills things we don't want killed.
Say you have a fungus that eats at your corn, maybe there is another one that just eats that fungus but leaves the corn alone. Or maybe you have some insect that eats your wheat, and some naturally occurring compound exists that is bad for the exoskeleton of that insect; put compound (found naturally or replicated synthetically) on the wheat, insects will be sad/dead/gone, there ya go, organic pesticide.
Those natural, or, organic pesticides usually evolved with some specific target in mind, while man-made pesticides are more like chemo therapy: kill as much as possible without killing the produce we want. This has the downside that killing as much as possible actually kills things we don't want killed.
> Organic in the sense of organic pesticides are the kinds of pesticides that you'd find in the wild, without them being man-made
I think you're confirming exactly what I wrote? ("natural etc.")
I think you're confirming exactly what I wrote? ("natural etc.")
Organic in the sense that when people refer to "organic pesticides" they are referring to a category that copper sulfate belongs to.
[deleted]
Organic is something that is not synthetic (the intricate philosophical details being left as an exercise).
Obviously, and sarcasm apart, the difference is nuanced. Organic Farming revolves around what is apparently natural, and in practice there is just a list farmers must respect.
I've been paraphrasing myself a lot these days, only to avoid saying the same thing many times. But in my humble opinion as a farmer, Organic Farming is a secular kosher for urban people. It has nothing to do with better farming practices, and everything to do with a sense of control over purity - purity in terms of what is closer to the urban conception of what constitutes True Nature.
Better farming practices involves the rational use of pesticides, synthetic or otherwise, used only as a last resort and having always in mind the effects to Nature (soil, water and wildlife) and human beings (farmers and consumers). In Europe all of these considerations are contemplated under an official standard called Integrated Farming - Organic Farming's big sister, as I call it.
Obviously, and sarcasm apart, the difference is nuanced. Organic Farming revolves around what is apparently natural, and in practice there is just a list farmers must respect.
I've been paraphrasing myself a lot these days, only to avoid saying the same thing many times. But in my humble opinion as a farmer, Organic Farming is a secular kosher for urban people. It has nothing to do with better farming practices, and everything to do with a sense of control over purity - purity in terms of what is closer to the urban conception of what constitutes True Nature.
Better farming practices involves the rational use of pesticides, synthetic or otherwise, used only as a last resort and having always in mind the effects to Nature (soil, water and wildlife) and human beings (farmers and consumers). In Europe all of these considerations are contemplated under an official standard called Integrated Farming - Organic Farming's big sister, as I call it.
Everything has a name like that.
Does it sound more organic if I call it ‘Bordeaux Mixture’ (before pointing at the all the people that died of copper poisoning)?
Does it sound more organic if I call it ‘Bordeaux Mixture’ (before pointing at the all the people that died of copper poisoning)?
No it isn't. It does not have any long term exposure effects due to ingestion of residue on produce.
Nor does glyphosate.
No one has been able to demonstrate health effects due to pesticide residue. Even studies purporting to show health effects for glyphosate do so at concentrations associated with handling the chemical in bulk, not at concentrations associated with consumption of residue.
No one has been able to demonstrate health effects due to pesticide residue. Even studies purporting to show health effects for glyphosate do so at concentrations associated with handling the chemical in bulk, not at concentrations associated with consumption of residue.
> Even studies purporting to show health effects for glyphosate do so at concentrations associated with handling the chemical in bulk
Do more well-accepted organic pesticides have these kinds of problems with bulk handling? Because otherwise I feel like this should be reason enough to avoid it.
Do more well-accepted organic pesticides have these kinds of problems with bulk handling? Because otherwise I feel like this should be reason enough to avoid it.
Yes see the toxicology section. It's way worse than glyphosate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper(II)_sulfate
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper(II)_sulfate
This isn't really what I was going for with "well-accepted" but I guess it's better than nothing, thanks. Copper sulfate's presence on that list is just about as questionable as glyphosate so I was hoping for something that people would actually think of as an organic pesticide (natural, etc. like already discussed earlier) not something that merely meets the federal requirements to be called 'organic'.
Isn't "less safe than glyphosate" is a weird metric, since glyphosate is relatively safe compared to other chemical herbicides? Wouldn't atrazine be a better comparison?
Rotenone, a naturally ocurring herbicide. Known cause of Parkinson's disease.
Source please?
There are plenty of alternatives, but none of them are easy money. They are in the order of slightly-less-easy-money all the way down to intense-changes-but-still-earn-well. That is also the problem, as any change that even costs a cent on the bottom line is a cultural no-no.
Solar powered weeding robots, big greenhouses and indoor hydroponics. Apparently environment control is the largest use of energy in farming, so much so, that you can actually use less energy by growing under lights.
Nothing. Don't listen to this guy. Glyphosate is not a pesticide, it's an herbicide. Anyone using the wrong terminology is a conspiracy theorist you can safely ignore.
I’m afraid it is you who are unfamiliar with the terminology, for glyphosate is commonly classed among "pesticides" in scholarly parlance.[0]
[0]https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=pl&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=glyph...
[0]https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=pl&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=glyph...
[deleted]
https://g1.globo.com/economia/agronegocios/noticia/2019/05/2...