Humans have been pushing out huge quantities of synthetic compounds for quite a while now- there is probably enough data to reliably conclude that the dangers are “not so great” to the general public when adequate oversight is provided by the Gov. Meanwhile, the dangers from mutations or genetic changes brought forth through natural processes are clearly quite substantial.
But maybe I shouldn’t be comparing viral, bacterial or fungal diseases to synthetic pesticides here. That’s probably not a fair comparison when the issue is organic vs conventional agriculture. It is important, however, to put relative risk in the context of greater expense and lower crop productivity. Lower productivity and more expensive food leads to increased incidence of malnutrition and even starvation globally, which is particularly hard on children as well.
These issues become complicated when you try to look at the whole picture.
I want all chemicals and fertilizer types used in the growing of whatever produce I buy listed on the shipping box.
I want all varieties named, where and from whom the seed or plant material was purchased, and if it’s GMO.
I want the grocer/seller to convey that information to me at the point of sale. Hey, I have this information on everything I grow.
I want this information on the primary component of packaged tortillas, cereal, etc.
I want agri-business and food scientists to know that I care about all of these things.
I want all of this information in digital form via bar code/chip/other, so that I can simply scan it in on my cell phone to read the data.
Two exceptions would be restaurants and prepared foods (frozen burritos, baked goods, etc). Those would be labeled as they are currently, or they are free to voluntarily comply.
Until then I’m skeptical of everything in our food supply.
totally understand, Alan.
because if we were to switch places, maybe i’d feel that the other person is adversarial too.
to be informed publicly that mothers living within a mile of my farm has a 60% higher chance of having an autistic child. That’s bad publicity, yes. But is it a fact? Yes, likewise.
And it wasn’t just one study, there were other studies which indicate similar findings.
the movement is getting there and accelerating, in fact. And thanks to the various forms of media(this included), pesticides and other harmful synthetic articles are being studied, scrutinized, and phased out. . The incriminating thing about synthetic(pesticides) is that they are engineered for the main purpose of killing or poisoning biologic entities-- and it just so happens that humans are biologic entities too. That’s murphy’s law for you(and all who live nearby, or will be eating fruits with pesticides). This is not to say that organic pesticides are 100% safe, as those too are being scrutinized. but for now, synthetics are generally deemed far more toxic.
JuJu, “The Movement” seems more to me like “the cult” if you fail to address any of the issues being brought here. Such as that certain organic pesticides can be more dangerous than synthetic ones- depending on the specific material. Such as that we use synthetic materials in all other areas of food distribution as well as every aspect of industrial production of goods we are in intimate contact with… Such as evidence clearly and widely available that production of crops would be severely reduced and cost of food highly escalated if useful synthetics were entirely (and insanely, IMO) removed from the business of producing food. And I could go on and on, but you won’t even address these simple points.
That materials proven dangerous are being phased out is a good thing and not proof of a wholesale turning away from modern chemistry to produce food. Instead safer and newer synthetic compounds are replacing more dangerous ones and I look forward to a future of much more pest specific materials with ever lower environmental pitfalls. As a species our only hope of survival is to embrace and pragmatically use science- especially chemistry in all existentially important endeavors with agricultural probably at the top of the list, along with medicine.
I also expect the market share of organic food to increase as long as there is more productive land available where organic food can be grown for a profit and the economy continues to support an expanding class of people who can afford to pay a premium for it. This is also a good thing IMO.
When 50% of the population of China and India eat primarily organically grown food I will concede that the “cult” is a real movement.
The new pervasive media allows for the widespread immediate dissemination of “facts” that are the farthest thing from being facts.
Our new media does accomplish bestowing, upon those who can skillfully turn a phrase or to tap into an irrational fear, the wherewithal to have an outsized influence and undesrved credibility.
Discredited or faulty studies continue to be quoted years later. Anything that is found on the “Googlenet” or Wikipedia is now gospel.
Improperly vetted, the internet is the armpit of the world.
And the worst part is that journalists and others factcheckers on whom we used to rely have gotten so lazy that they help spread the uncomposted manure even faster.
Be careful what you wish for with the new media because you just might get it.
RELIGIOUS FERVOR is NOT limited to the traditional definition of “religious”.
Fervently hopeful,… and finding myself in full 100% agreement with Alan. (gotta check my meds )
We’re in the age of information. You need to be smarter and more self-reliant than ever just to process it all. We need to demand the right information in key areas that impact our lives. Time for our food additives and agricultural inputs to map back to MSDS and other applicable data points.
Bill Nye just flipped over to supporting GMO foods. He also believes that GMO foods should be labeled in order to promote and demystify them. I agree completely. Label these food items, let people do their homework and decide if it’s something they want to feed to their family. Knowledge is power.
I’m also a believer in GMO identification even without the demystifying part. I consider the creation of GMO’s to be a promising technology but those who feel otherwise should be allowed to vote with their pocketbooks. It’s how an open and democratic society is supposed to be. Unfortunately, the corpocracy in which we find ourselves doesn’t always resemble such a thing.
if i were in a developing country, say, in the poorest of podunk areas of the world, would i have second thoughts about feeding an emaciated child or mother with apples and peaches from a pesticide-dependent farmer? Of course not, i will feed them stat, if those fruits are the only available food i could get hold of. But to feed them the same stuff on a daily basis? probably not. Once they have been resuscitated, will definitely encourage them to grow the stuff they have been growing totally-pesticide free for centuries. Gumbo, lentils, if they live in africa// potatoes and tepary beans, if from central or so america// and indigenous rice, figs, and taro, if from asia.
to even insinuate ‘solving’ starvation globally by introducing pesticides to those indigenous peasants. No way! Many of them don’t even have a concept of money.
or about nitrile gloves, goggles, prostate cancer, insulin resistance, pesticide-correlated autism/mental retardation, ad infinitum and ad libitum
perhaps we should first deal with what we have here in america, where, as you are aware, starvation among children and adults is very rare, and where obesity/type 2 diabetes are the surging trends.
exactly, and this is why i ask, whose comments here may summarily be set in stone, or declared as indisputable fact? There is none, or is there? Many which one could deem worthy of consideration are not comments-- namely, the posted studies indicating that farmers lifespans being longer , and the positive correlation between pesticide use and risk of autism and mental retardation, prostate cancer, parkinsons disease, obesity, T-2 diabetes, etc. Truly happy for the farmers on one hand, while on the other hand, not happy for the latter victims.
the EPA, in one of its websites, declares ‘confidence’ they have made progress in ensuring the safety of americans when they banned certain pesticides indefinitely. Maybe we can call that progress, but that was after pesticides have been released to the public already, and some only after several years.
as for googlenet and wikipedia, i don’t remember seeing anyone post anything here in those categories.
My wife is from Ethiopia and it sounds like you are thinking about Africa 100 years ago. She’d be extremely offended by your stereotyping Africans as monolithically a population of primitive farmers (with no concept of money!).
People who deal with global hunger are aware that the price of corn, wheat and soy in America determines how much it will cost to feed a people when local crops fail anywhere else in the world where there are not adequate supplies of stored food available. The U.N. and NGO’s that are involved with these crisis are usually inadequately funded.
There is no point in our continuing this discussion. I don’t believe it to be a debate based on logic.
first it was ‘adversarial’, and now it is the ‘cult’. But as always, i totally understand. It is your livelihood versus the implications to the vast majority’s health. The thing is, per EPA’s recommendations as follows
“currently-approved pesticides are considered safe if used in the right way”.
and the keywords are ‘currently-approved’
and ‘used in the right way’
the vast majority has no control over those, so can’t help but ignore your claims of pesticides being totally safe, and that anyone saying otherwise is[quote=“alan, post:3, topic:2003”]
utter BS in my opinion
[/quote]
as for
not at all. The point was never to offend anyone but just the same, i apologize. Tried to render those comments in the most politically correct way possible, and woud appreciate you check it out
this once-- we are in agreement… lol!
only time will tell, i guess
would really hope to see this thread 5 yrs from now, or 10-20 yrs from now or longer!
hoping to see you guys then, looking forward to hold a reunion!
Before leaving, I’m wondering what you are actually advocating. I live in the northeast where it is extremely difficult to grow many kinds of fruit on any scale without the use of synthetic pesticides. I started with that intention but it was even more hopeless 25 years ago (before Surround) when Gardens Alive actually sold Imidan as a concession that organic methods were futile in controlling certain humid zone pests. Do you think that things should only be grown in areas where it can be done without the use of synthetic products?
My business approach to the pesticide issue is to offer my customers a choice between an organic program, using Surround, or a low spray program where hopefully the last insecticide goes down in spring and any fungicide a month before actual harvest of stonefruit, or a pristine fruit program where fungicide apps continue through Aug (unlike commercial growers, I do no spraying in June). Almost none of my customers, even those that otherwise buy only organic food, opt for the organic program, although they may try it for a year. Ghost trees and clay stuck to the fruit takes most of the fun out the process for them especially when it leads to a lot of unusable fruit.
The ones opting for pristine fruit are generally those trying to grow a lot of fruit to give away, sometimes to food banks, sometimes to have annual apple harvest parties. Guests want pretty fruit and food banks don’t want fruit that looks like “junk”.
The vast majority opt for a 2 or 3 spray program for apples with at least one additional fungicide spray for stone fruit. This is a fraction of what is used by the industry and the land would otherwise be used only for turf and ornamental plantings.
Would you suggest I give up my business because the pesticides are doing so much harm? That fruit in this country should be grown primarily in the far west and shipped elsewhere?
I am grateful for the chemicals that allow me to grow so much wonderful fruit where I live. I am proud of the crops that my work allows my customers to enjoy. They and I believe I’m making a positive contribution to their lives. I wish I could stop the summer rain and had ample irrigation water to use from far away mountains instead, but that isn’t reality.
There are many things in modern society that increase our chances of longer and healthier lives and many things that have the opposite affect. I wonder why you’ve chosen pesticides as such an important element of the latter. As you mentioned, diabetes is the nations #1 preventable health problem and yet children’s TV programs are allowed to market products containing mostly sugar as “funfood”. Shouldn’t we be focused on issues like this which are so much more clearly rooted in data?
Excellent post. Its a spot on contrast from practical growing vs. pie in the sky ideals. Really appreciate that you are willing to share the perspective.
Alan, in my small orchard I was spraying too often. I was so nervous about CAR, OFM, Curcs, Scab, you name it. I found out that TWO sprays really takes care of my 33 trees, and one spray in Aug. Of Mont. FF is great. Over spraying in the NE is a knee jerk reaction for new tree owners. But without spray we have no fruit. Really enjoyed your comments!
I think that you and others have missed a potential reason/perspective for posting the article in the first place. The conversation has drifted a bit ( as these often tend to do).
My feeling is that …
The masses are gullible and can be sold a bill of goods just by applying a “label” that happens to resonate at the time.
“New and improved”, “doctor recommended” “choice”, "grade “A”, “prime”, “fat free”, “organic” , ( others here can come up with dozens more) … all of these count on the consumer to choose the product or accept a theory because of the hype or the “follow the herd” mentality.
“Gluten” has become a dirty word. A tiny percentage of the population cannot tolerate it but now even those who have no problem with gluten just “have to have it” . It is all a sales gimmick run amok. “Health care” and “health insurance” are now synonyms. We now have more “health insurance” even though in some cases it causes poorer “health care”.
Speaking specifically of pesticide use and its effects, we have to admit that there are just too many variables. There is (1) exposure level, (2) exposure duration, (3)health of the exposed, (4) age of the exposed, (5) male v. female, (6) infant/adult, (7) child/adult, (8) in-utero/post-utero, (9) gestating age in-utero, etc (many more differentiating factors I am sure).
So, to fixate on ONE variable and to shout it from the rooftops ( “Googlenet” " Wikipedia" etc) distorts reality. That is what I meant about being careful of what you wish for. The “Googlenet” gives the loudest shout the biggest influence. The distortion is the danger.
My point in posting that article was to point out that if, inside an “organic supermarket” you asked 10 people to define “organic” you would likely get 10 different answers. BUT, all these people would be spending extra money and buying something different than they thought they were buying.
I think that, either because of apathy or because of life priorities, maybe 5% of the people are paying attention to what is going on and make their own informed decisions. The rest, if they even care, rely on others (the others being gov’t regulators, and those “fact checkers” I mentioned) to tell them what is ok. Even the 5% who are paying attention sometimes “Google” a term and read the first link and take it as THE truth when all it is is the link that had the “catch phrase” of the moment.
Heck, recently at one university dozens signed a petition to allow FOURTH trimester abortions because they were supporting “choice”. They were not even listening to anything else except for the accepted “label” (choice in that example because to have choice was good.)
There is no Utopia. There is no system that we can design that will benefit 100% of the people 100% of the time. The best system will screw some of the people some of the time.
There are trade-offs to each and every human activity. Being human is making the “risk-reward” calculation for oneself.
I just want to say how much I appreciate when people discuss this type of thing without hyperbola, insults, or personal jibes at one another. The clear reasoning and explanations of most participants has kept this discussion one worth reading when it could so easily have devolved into useless bickering.Thanks to all who have have kept their heads and bitten their lips (or thought twice about hitting "enter).
seems to me this is main reason why you’re not forthcoming towards people who say pesticides are not exactly safe, and as always, i perfectly understand, and couldn’t blame you for your stance.
but to say that pesticides are perfectly safe and that it is BS to deem it differently was what wasn’t acceptable to me. Farmers, even if licensed sprayers, could end up with wrong calculations, or may be influenced by mood/economic conditions, etc.
also, any pesticide that is currently-approved by the feds may, at some point, be banned(dieldrin, agent orange, etc), but only after damage has been done to the environment, to plants/animals, and most importantly, human beings-- vietnamese or americans-- irregardless. It is dangerously subject to ‘hindsight wisdom’. So for you to dismiss any qualm about pesticides is quite unacceptable, since we’re dealing with the health and well-being of all of us here, and since there are side effects(be it time-dependent/cumulative or not) that are yet unknown to even the best-of-the-best pesticide ‘experts’ existing today, and i hope you admit that it includes you.
as for bringing up obesity, type 2 diabetes, and pesticide experts(which am not), i guess you are not aware about what carbamates and organophosphates do. Way before they reach lethal outcomes, they increase salivation and stimulate gastrointestinal motility. Those nerve agents appear to have parasympathetic effects which will influence the appetite of anyone or anything which utilizes acetylcholine as a neurotransmitter… Acetylcholine is a dominant neurotransmitter in many animals, humans included. So with mentioned neuro-agent pesticides, it is not far-flung to consider the autism/mental retardation correlation as well. It is a legitimate concern, and this is just one finding(among predictably multitudes) that we have discovered via hindsight. And that is just regarding those mentioned pesticides. What about the other disease correlations with other diseases or other pesticides that have yet to trend someday? As you’re aware, one cannot totally remove residues from fruits and vegies.
oh well, this correspondence is getting long, and has grown more contentious-- than definitively educational, so hoping to revisit this webpage someday when findings/discoveries are conclusive.
thanks guys, and see you at other threads for the meantime.
You sound an awful lot to me like the folks who object to the use of vaccines. You say you are not an expert but presume to be aware of elevated dangers that the scientific community as a whole is not.
You are also repeatedly taking a statement I made and proscribing motive- but without saying so directly. That is, that I am misleading my customers to make my living and exposing them to dangerous poison by my deception. This is hugely offensive, of course, but a logical assertion, none the less.
The fact is, I expected greater health consequences from being an applicator than the epidemiological studies I found, and it was genuinely difficult for me to logically grasp how thousands of farmers with huge exposure to pesticides don’t have elevated rates of cancer and other health consequences from this exposure. In the study I showed, in the summary, the scientists were also puzzled, probably because they were aware of various studies that showed elevated risks of specific cancers among farmers. I expect their perceptions are also affected by the cultural embrace of the high risk of pesticides I constantly see demonstrated on NPR, the NY Times and other media outlets popular with the highly educated class.
When I showed this study your first response was that it was because farmers were less exposed than the general public because they were careful, or something to that affect. If you were open minded on this issue I am certain that would not have been your first response based on the overall intelligence you have displayed within your writing.
The same thing about synthetic materials increasing productivity and decreasing costs being a component of helping to feed the world and reduce famine. There are strong elements of logic in your arguments against pesticides but a seeming lack of it in the face of counter arguments. I have repeatedly conceded merit in points you have made.
Every single step in progress brought about by science contains risks and a downside. All along the way, educated and intelligent people protest innovations and technologies brought on by the tide of scientific innovation. These protests are certainly not always mistaken but yours has not even included a prescription for what you would like to be done instead, even when invited to do so. I don’t consider your comments very constructive because of that, but they have been provocative. That has entertainment value, at least.
My avatar is a picture of the complex of three molecules of secalonic acid D and two irons; a crystal structure I did a while back. Check out secalonic acid D. Natural product from various species of fungi. Nasty stuff. Teratogenic. Probably causes cleft palate. Purely organic! Well, the complex is actually organometallic, and yes I know the difference between the chemical definition of “organic” and the loosely defined “organic” under discussion in this thread. Wonder if I looked closely enough if I would find secalonic acid D on my sooty blotched apples?
have said adieu twice already, but i guess you insist inviting me back…
i don’t object to the use of vaccines, but just because i’d prescribe it doesn’t mean am going to tell the patient it doesn’t carry any risk. Besides, it is a litigious society. In this country and other developed countries, parents or patients often need to fill out consent forms just to receive a vaccine, because vaccines may be lethal, depending on the health status of the individual, or(and for the most part) may have undesirable side effects. Moreover, when we prescribe a tetanus shot to a patient who comes in to be seen for having accidentally cut his finger with a kitchen knife, it is nothing more than prophylaxis. Prophylaxis for both the patient AND the prescriber. Cutting one’s self with a household knife, odds are probably 99 to 1 that there was no tetanus spore on that knife, but if so happens there was, odds are ~99 to 1 that the person dies of lockjaw. Either way though, it is a possible emergency. Having to eat fruits and vegies with pesticide residues(be it organic pesticides or synthetic) is not an emergency . It boils down to personal choice, and a need-to-be- informed with correlations and possible causative factors and trends. You mentioned china and india as users of pesticides, their obesity and t 2 diabetes rates are climbing up as well. Is there a correlation? well, given the findings for americans, one could consider the same for them as well.
none of the nobel laureates claim him or herself as ‘the’ expert. So why should you or i do the same? Although einstein, who is arguably up there with newton, fell into that ‘cock-sure trap’ of dismissing other scientists about quantum theory, and if he was alive today, would have to concede. But that is another story. Moreover, have you ever met a doctor who’ve told you that the medicine he’s prescribing you is ‘totally-safe’? There’s not such thing even with relatively harmless motrins or aspirins, so for you to declare publicly that pesticide use on fruits are totally-safe, that sir, is dangerous.
And referring to the hindsight intelligence of sanctioning-- then banning, dieldrin, agent orange, ddt etc. scenario which i brought up earlier., who among us here or anywhere, could claim expertise?
hey, i didn’t take part in generating the mounting evidence, of studies correlating autism, mental retardation, obesity, parkinsons etc to pesticides.
as always, just because the scientific community–or more exactly the feds, have deemed dieldrin acceptable at the time it was introduced does not mean the sanctioning was permanent. The ‘scientific community as a whole’ deemed it safe-- but only at the time. Studies(for the now banned pesticide) similar to the autism/obesity/t2 diabetes were reviewed, until finally, they realized dieldrin was unsafe.
have apologized severa times for the first clause above, and i thank you for the latter.
need you, or i, say more?
i agree, but again, you are speaking on behalf of the first person–the farmers, who are typically adult men, and who are expected to be fit, considering the relatively dangerous and physical aspects of the job. This may be a bias in your favor, but nonetheless, i am happy for you! While a bias in your favor health-wise, it is not favorable argument-wise. As there is the bigger picture of variables(age/sex/sometimes even race), like the women and children. Also with equations as lethal dose 50’s and time of exposure, these are practically limited to, well, lethal doses.
With sub-lethal doses, you cannot measure that, and only things to do are correlation studies, cohort, case-control, etc. Or measure pesticide metabolites versus morbidity rates.
These take a long time to do, and sadly, the damages are already there.
i am not too keen about expanding the argument into plastics and other synthetics which are not geared towards the killing or maiming living organisms, because we’re talking about fruit growing. But just so you know, i am not a big fan of plastics. Thank goodness i don’t have to eat them to survive.
seems like you’ve mistaken for somebody else’s post, could you quote it? If i remember it right, i actually posted the exact opposite-- that the likelihood of spraying stronger concentrations is increased if farmer wants to guarantee his trees are protected.
and that conversely, a home-grower would rather underdose if homegrower if he/she or his children will be eating the fruits
prescription? was trying to avoid that as you won’t just find me more provocative, and definitely not even entertaining if i give you one, lol!
but since you ask, i avoid or minimize eating anything in the “dirty dozen” when it comes to pesticide content. Which as you’re aware, most berries(except muberries), and practically all apples, peaches and nectarines. I do eat berries, apples and peaches from our orchard or from friends who are too lazy to spray. Sorry.
Also it is not for me to tell you to shift your farming to other fruit trees, especially if those are the only ones you can grow(or think you can grow) for profit.
but to clarify, i won’t be scroogey about eating any of your farm-grown fruits and will eat one or two if offered, but won’t be eating anymore the rest of the month or so.
so is this goodbye or not? If it is, then see you at the other threads. We really don’t see eye to eye, but you’ve already tried, and i’ve tried— you and me both-- to no avail.
)