Are pesticides really that bad?

I just got back from using a pesticide for the first time. I feel bad, LOL.
The tradename on the bottle is “Sumichion” or Sumithion, licensed in Japan as pesticide #4962. I believe this is the same as Fenitrothion?, but it’s difficult with the translations. It’s advertised as a broad range, knock-down pesticide that will also take out Japanese beetles. They die when they eat the leaf. Apparently it’s being used here popularly for a long time.
It’s cheap, a tiny four dollar bottle dilutes 1000 times to make 100 L. I’m never going to use it all. I only needed a 500 mL bottle of mix to do all three grapevines several times over. I wore goggles but couldn’t wear my mask, as they kept fogging up. I tried to avoid the spray as much is possible, but there was a light breeze which kept shifting. It has a very strong odor, so I was able to tell when I was breathing it in.
The main problem I think is that it was raining heavily all day, so everything was covered in water, and there was a heavy mist in the air. I may go up again and reapply when the weather dries out a bit. I wanted to get it on ASAP though, as the beetles have just showed up and there’s already quite a bit of damage.
I bagged all the grapes just before spraying.
They advise not to use it on grapevines before July, as it may damage them. You can use it on peaches up until three days before harvest.
Here’s the bad guys last night. It’s funny, I see these large black beetles more than the Japanese beetles:

I bagged grapes and peaches last year, and it was very successful for the fruit, but I couldn’t protect the leaves. Bagging certain fruits is standard here, so bags are readily available, of high-quality, and cheap. I took this picture today at the local home center, you can see different styles for different fruits:

4 Likes

There are many different pesticides and herbicides and lumping then all into one group is not wise. Some are very dangerous to use. Others not as dangerous. Some are very damaging to the environment. Others not so damaging. But there absolutely are chemicals that are very unnatural to use and the professor that said that every toxic chemical used in agriculture is natural is intentionally misrepresenting how the word natural is used in agriculture. There is nothing natural about spraying thousands of acres with roundup.

You don’t have to use pesticides to grow fruit. I grow a number of different fruits and do not use any pesticides or herbicides. Some fruits in some areas are subject to greater pest pressures so in those areas you do have some choices to make. Just make them intelligently.

2 Likes

@castanea

2 Likes

neem oil mixed with warm water and a tbs of dish detergent is a non toxic alternative spray that works really well but you need to apply weekly till’ the problem is gone. works well as a fungicide too. i only use the toxic stuff when the neem isn’t working which is very rare.

2 Likes

I got a bit more information on pesticides here. I’m supposed to stop spraying with this one 30 days before harvest of large grapes, 90 days before harvest of small bunched grapes. Maximum of two applications per season. The restrictions are a lot more relaxed on some fruit like peaches, up to three days before harvest, maximum six applications per season.
Apparently this is much less toxic than Sevin. It’s supposed to have no effect on warm blooded creatures, but you should not use it around a pond or on invertebrates.
It’s funny, it is a thick amber liquid, but when I mix it with water it instantly turns into white skim milk.
Not sure if I have to spray the underside of leaves, or just over the top side of the canopy is good enough?
Lots of unanswered questions about pesticides here, but this is the best I could do.

1 Like

spray the whole plant. undersides of leaves esp. as thats where bugs are the most. branches too. i even spray around the base as bugs like to hide in the mulch . if your going to spray make it count!

1 Like

Ok thanks.
I had another question: if someone were to do a full course of pesticides on schedule to guarantee they get a full undamaged crop every year (i’m assuming this is what most commercial growers do), would the fruit basically taste the same and have the same nutritional make up as organic fruit?
Is the only downside of using pesticides the possibility of an uncharted potential future health risk?

1 Like

And killing bees.

i don’t do preventive spraying. i check them often and only spray the strong stuff when theres some injury. i spray neem weekly but never when there are blooms forming or open as even neem will kill bees. no bees= no fruit! the nutritional make up isn’t affected with pesticides but still poses some risk of residue. when i do need to spray i cover the whole plant thoughoughly . you want to limit reapplication as much as you can. my 2 cents.

1 Like

Smoking is dangerous. Driving while intoxicated is also dangerous. A diet of high sugar industrial food is dangerous. However, using pesticides according to label directions has not been established to represent a substantial risk to the applicator- the data does not exist that enforces this supposition. There is some very convincing data pointing the other way, based on following the health histories of 70,000 registered applicators and their spouses for over 2 decades (these are people generally exposed to much, much more pesticide than the average home orchardist)- the data the study has uncovered actually surprised the hell out of the researchers- that these people live much longer, have much less cancer and much better overall health than the overall population in their respective states.

This is not to suggest that there are no potential health issues with pesticides. We need more research on their affect on children- even very small amounts, and there are certain cancers applicators seem to be more vulnerable to even though their overall rates are lower. There are also important environmental problems with chemical based monoculture on huge acreage.

If anyone wants to see this study in full, contact me and I’ll e-mail you a copy- it was carried out by the U.S. Dept. of Health through Republican and Democratic administrations and published in a well respected peer reviewed journal.

6 Likes

I absolutely love how even handed this forum is about such things.

3 Likes

Health risks for you and everyone who lives with you or near you. Possible destruction of insects, birds and amphibians that live on or near the place of application. Possible pollution of the air, soil and water. Possible drift to neighboring properties with subsequent lawsuits. A good article to read - http://www.toxicsaction.org/problems-and-solutions/pesticides

1 Like

And you don’t want to see the study of which I speak? Yours is an article to scare people as is your comment, and the article is political, not scientific, IMO. The environmental consequences of pesticide use in big agriculture should not be considered in the same conversation as spraying a few fruit trees on ones property. None of the consequences you list can be attached to this kind of usage. To my knowledge, as long as you follow directions on the label, the pesticide company is responsible for the legal fall-out of its use.

I am a commercial applicator and know several other commercial applicators that do much, much more spraying than I do, and I don’t know of a single instance of any of us being sued in the context of spraying.

Personally, I would never use any kind of pesticide for lawn use, I never use herbicides either, although I can see how they could be necessary for a farmer producing food for a living. However, the decision is not based on some whole-sale rejection of all pesticide use in all situations. I enjoy harvesting tree-ripe nectarines from my trees and it is an experience I want my customers to be able to share- no synthetic pesticides in my area, no nectarines. Almost all the fruit we love is much more easily produced here with the judicious use of a few synthetic materials, none of which has been linked to meaningful environmental degradation when used in the scale of a small orchard.

6 Likes

I would say no, most pesticides have been studied for decades and decades. The ones allowed show little to no risk so far, many studied for 50 years. In today’s environment you can’t use pesticides without multi-million dollar decade long studies first.[quote=“TheNiceGuy, post:27, topic:11582”]
would the fruit basically taste the same and have the same nutritional make up as organic fruit?
[/quote]

Yes, absolutely the same.[quote=“alan, post:33, topic:11582”]
Yours is an article to scare people as is your comment, and the article is political
[/quote]

Yes, agree 100%, total propaganda. Very common, a shame people buy into this total BS. Seen it with other subjects too. Propaganda is alive and well. The article mentions one study, and they made conclusions of that study, that pesticides may be harmful, but the researchers who did the study, made no such conclusion. Politics and science should never mix.

1 Like

@castanea

From the article.
“Pesticides have been linked to a wide range of human health hazards…”
1.Yup, including…death from old age because early death and disease from starvation and malnutrition was not allowed to take its “natural” course.

From the article
“… forty years after Carson drew attention to the health and environmental impacts of DDT…”
2. I wonder how the “health” impact on millions who have died or been struck by malaria was effected. DDT was improperly used and then totally banned. Maybe a “total ban” was not the way to go.

From the article
“The real solution to our pest and weed problems lies in non-toxic and cultural methods of agriculture, not in pulling the pesticide trigger.”
3. Yes… Ban all pesticides and the effect of pesticides will plummet…along with the population who could not be fed

From the article
“Organically grown foods and sustainable methods of pest control are key to our families’ health and the health of the environment”
4. And Alice’s “Wonderland”, the “Magic Kingdom” and “Fantasy Island” are all real places. Also see #1 above

Applying pesticides is not a binary choice. The benefits must be weighed against the costs and responsible decisions made and actions taken.

Crossing the street puts you in danger of getting hit by a car. The solution is either…

  1. ban cars - could work, might be a little disruptive
  2. ban crossing the street - could work, but just as disruptive
  3. building pedestrian bridges above the traffic - impractically expensive
  4. building mini tunnels for the cars under the pedestrian crossings. - ditto

OR…

Put up traffic lights and tell people "HEY PEDESTRIANS, HEY DRIVERS… BE CAREFUL
Some people will still get hit by cars. Some drivers will still die in accidents. But remember what Darwin said.

Just a thought

Mike

2 Likes

They don’t get sued often because because the laws are rigged in favor or large commercial applicators and against the little guy. Here’s a law we need- If your spray drifts on my property and causes any damage of any kind, you lose the right to spray for five years, and owe all compensatory damages plus minimum punitive damages of $100,000 per incident. If your spray is found in any body of water adjoining your property, another five year ban and minimum punitive damages of $500,000. For more than one offense, a mandatory jail term.

As far as the study goes, I know exactly what we’ll find, a study designed to show nothing. Most politicians from both parties and many scientists have been paid to look the other way and protect Big Ag and that’s what they do, That’s why the folks at Monsanto are not in jail, yet.

1 Like

The article is to give another viewpoint to to help disengage some people from the corporate propaganda that is spread by bought scientists and which saturates mainstream media. 1. There is no proof of any kind that use of pesticides is required to grow adequate food for the planet. The world view that says pesticides are necessary is just an adult fantasy story. 2. You keep wondering how many people would have been saved by DDT because you can’t prove that anyone would have been saved. You should start wondering how many toxic effects DDT had that are still not admitted. Hint, DDT poisoning can mimic polio. 3. That many people would die is your fantasy, a fantasy that is as important to you as Disneyland is to little kids. My fantasy involves farmers learning to grow food without pesticides and without the environmental damages that inevitably follows pesticide use. 4. Organically grown foods are in fact a key to health and the health of the environment.

2 Likes

“I would say no, most pesticides have been studied for decades and decades. The ones allowed show little to no risk so far, many studied for 50 years. In today’s environment you can’t use pesticides without multi-million dollar decade long studies first.”

Pesticides and herbicides become legal after the producers buy politicians and regulators. Most pesticides SHOULD have been studied for decades by disinterested parties BEFORE being deemed legal for use, but none have ever been evaluated in that fashion. Typically, the more these chemicals are studied, the more dangers that are revealed. Case in point - glyphosate.

1 Like

Yes, and all agree, DDT is allowed to be used again in Malaria infested areas. It is used, is being used all the time now.

Which is completely safe, that WHO study showed it was safe, the organization decided to say otherwise, but the study is very clear. The WHO also said coffee was just as dangerous, and as likely to cause cancer as Round Up. So if you agree, you should not be drinking coffee either even though it contains more anti-oxidants of any known fruit or seed. They have since dropped the coffee causes cancer stance. As the laughter was too loud.
What a joke the World Health Organization is, a totally political entity which should be completely ignored.Fake news!

1 Like