I would be more or less inclined to participate in a study if I thought the results of the study were going to prove something beneficial. And on some questions I have ideas about what kind of conclusions would and wouldn’t prove beneficial. It’s totally commonplace to foresee where people are wanting to go with questions and to distrust that the line of questioning will prove useful or constructive. I also don’t trust the authors of every study to crunch the numbers fairly. You yourself noted the obvious prejudice of the authors that was contradicted by the results. Why wouldn’t some of the farmers that participated in the study have noticed the same prejudice? And I never said farmers would hide cancers they knew were caused by pesticides. That wasn’t at all what I suggested farmers might do. First of all, a farmer could very well believe that his cancer wasn’t really caused by pesticides and not want to aid prejudiced researchers in falsely attributing his cancer to pesticides. Secondly, a farmer could simply be more or less motivated to participate or to continue participating if he thought the results of his participation were going to contribute to a true or false narrative, and he might have more trust in his own perceptions than in obviously prejudiced researchers or researchers that he was skeptical of for any number of other reasons. Or a farmer might simply lose motivation to participate in a study if his lifelong trust in pesticides and the way of farming to which he had devoted his whole working life suddenly seemed like a huge mistake: that might not be so easy to come to terms with, and a farmer might not want to deal with lots of hard and probing questions in the midst of that. The only real point here is that dealing with people is complicated. Surveys told us it was a sure thing Clinton was going to win the election, too, right? There was a whole lot more invested in those surveys than there ever will be in surveys relating to adverse effects of pesticide exposure, and they were still really wrong.
Very true.
Maybe not. Here in San Diego County we have large number of small acreage (< 10 acre) apple and fruit orchards. Many of them have been my customers over the last decade. Of these, most are judicious (low) pesticide users, about half are certified organic, and one of them is notoriously no pest control. The latter is the largest source of agricultural pests and diseases in the county. Their MO is to grow crops regardless of disease and pests until the County Ag pathologist obtains a court order for them to eradicate the crop and pests. For example, they are a continual source of Pierce’s disease. About every 5 years the County gets a cease and desist order and they burn their vines to the ground … only to plant a new vineyard elsewhere on the property. And it’s not just grapes, the saga goes on and on with crop after crop. But the demand for their “no pesticide” fruits and vegetables is high so their business model works – and is subsidized by the tax payers for oversight and court costs, and is also subsidized by nearly every other fruit grower in the county who must control the pests they are propogating. 
that’s a weird catch-22. They are essentially required to spray even if they didn’t want to. Almost analogous to, if not more complicated, than the circumstances and arguments for and against roe vs wade
someone should start a thread with the title-- Grapes without pesticides
just for kicks 
In this 20 yr. study, twice a yr. we received a 40-50 page questionnaire with 200+ questions in it. The questions were mostly the same year after year, how you did it, why you sprayed it, and how much you used. This was to confirm our answers. Then we had phone interviews, long ones. Yes we noticed the prejudice and the leading questions, these were challenged to the interviewers and on the questionnaires, we also had many chances to correct misconceptions and perceived application rates and methods from interviewers. This at times became relatively contentious and lead me to want to quit a number of times. All this to say, I started the study so I could monitor my health related to pesticide use and the results from others use, in the end all it became was a frustration on the time invested by so many and the lack of any real good, hard information.
They are a source of pests with no legal, environmental, or philosophical justification – other than profit.
In case you missed it – they grow apples.
their produce and land are pesticide-free, those are their legal, environmental, and philosophical justifications.
Nothing is ever certain, but epidemiological studies are the best sources of information we have when it comes to evaluating health risks, It is the methodology that sealed the deal with the danger of smoking tobacco. In the case of this study, you have 70,000 people who are completely different than the general population in terms of relative pesticide exposure- the study has now been going on for something like 20 years (as there has been a follow up). It is not a survey of opinion but a cut and dry survey of relative health, with the same group of people.
Could it be wrong? Could the Canadian study also be wrong for similar reasons? Of course, but what do you propose to use as guidance, our gut feelings? I think that it is usually better to go with the best science we have and adapt when other research becomes available.
What I objected to was simply that it didn’t point to any specific study as a topic of discussion, and seemed more an attempt to suggest that all pesticides likely cause cancer just because many studies have been done about a wide variety of materials. It didn’t seem an effort to clarify because it came with no explanation of an intended point.
Why don’t you think the study revealed useful information? It seems the results suggest your pesticide use is likely not a significant threat to your health. I would expect you to consider this useful- are you saying that the study is flawed because you felt the questioners were steering you to the conclusion they wanted?.
It may have been frustrating, but did it cause you to provide misinformation to make pesticides seem safe? If so, than cousinfloyd may be right that the study ended up skewering results in the opposite direction as to what was intended.
I rather doubt that people pretended to be alive when they were in fact dead, however. Mortality is probably the most telling statistic in the survey.
Parathion is a very dangerous pesticide and fortunately its use is now very restricted or even banned in some countries. Many manufacturers have withdrawn their registration for this chemical I don’t believe its labeled for use on Apples anywhere in the US at this time, but I could be wrong. According to some information on the Internet, over 100 farm workers in the USA have been killed by this chemical.
Actually, no. Given the many court ordered eradications, they are outside their legal rights. Given the outrageous pest burden they put on the rest of the county, they have no environmental concern – so consequently their only philosophical motivation is profit.
i understand what you’re saying, but that’s the point of view of cali dept of AG, and the farmers who use sprays. But for folks who don’t like pesticides, they are obviously happier with pesticide-free fruits.
Even between two hypothetical neighbors, the neighbor spraying, say, malathion on his apple trees will be a bane to the neighbor(who does not spray his apple trees) who will definitely resent getting a whiff of malathion spray drifting into his air-space.
and vice-versa, since the pesticide-spraying neigbor blames all the pests on his hippie, live and let live/die neighbor.
I always answered the questions as truthfully as I understood them because who could tell how the survey would turn out and what future use could be made from it.
I didn’t, then or now, think the study was flawed. Even though questioners tried to edge you towards their thoughts, they always listened and their misconceptions were corrected in future interviews and questionnaires. For example, a question was asked about contaminating public water sources. I told the person about mandates for backflow devises and the question was altered the next interview and then dropped, which was unusual because most questions were in the booklet at least 5-6 years.
Again, I tried to answer questions as straight as possible. I have never been uninformed on the dangers to people from these chemicals. To me, pesticides are a tool, like a nail gun. Very useful but dangerous in the wrong hands.
I personally don’t care if some one wants to use or not, and if you chose not, great. Tell us how you keep pests out of your crops. Because a few are vocal in their disagreement doesn’t mean your point of view isn’t valuable and your knowledge not useful, but likewise respect those who use and don’t feel picked upon and leave because some one in our fruity family might call you out. To quote God in the Old Testement, “Gird up your loins like a man,” this might leave a mark. Last part was mine.
No you don’t. I’m relating the facts about one greedy operation that manipulates the system at everyone else’s expense. I have said nothing about this case generalizing to the general population. Certainly many of the folks effected by this grower are my friends or colleagues with varying philosophies in their approach to orchard culture.
i guess not, but not that it matters, since am not taking sides. Not really sure who to defend.
I’m trying a different approach. Recently BT bacteria that eat chitin in beetles and larvae have been developed as a pesticide. The bacteria are expensive. Recently hearing an interview with the founder of Neptune’s Harvest products, she mentions a crab shell product as a light fertilizer. She also mentioned that the chitin in the shells attracts chitin eating bacteria (like the newly discovered bt strain being sold). So I spread the stuff around my yard. As these bacteria will also eat chitin on living larvae, and beetles. You don’t need to buy the bacteria, just attract them to your yard. I have spread the actual bacteria twice (covering all bases), so hoping to keep the population alive, besides attracting local bacteria that eat chitin.
speaking of apples and chitin. The ancient relative of apples-- the jujubes, have chitinase. May well be the reason why jujus are generally safe from fungal/insect attack.
seedlings seem not to have enough of it though, as sowbugs eat them with gusto.
Splice that gene into some nice apple DNA, I say.
I was going to say the same thing, but decided not to, I was thinking peach myself!