Pesticides proved ineffective as a whole

[riddler 0]

Most people I talk to are already aware that pesticides applied to our food sources equate to health risks. For instance, pesticides are linked to Parkinson's disease and cancer.

How much good has come from the use of pesticides? Although pesticides are used for a variety of reasons, such as mosquito control, the largest use by far is still for preventing crop loss from insects.

But are pesticides effective in preventing crop loss? According to David Pimentel, the answer is no, at least on a large scale.

Here is a summary of some of his findings:

- Although the use of synthetic pesticides has increased 33-fold since 1942, more of the U.S. food supply is lost to pests today (an estimated 37%) than in the 1940s (31%). Losses attributed to insects almost doubled (from 7% to 13%) despite a 10-fold increase in the use of synthetic insecticides.

- The estimated environmental, health, and social costs of pesticide use in the United States range from $4 to $10 billion per year. The International Food Policy Research Institute puts the estimate much higher, at $100-200 billion per year, or $5-10 in damages for every dollar spent on pesticides.


Things you can do if you're tired of being poisoned for no apparent reason:

- Check food labels on produce that you buy. If the sticker number on your fruits and veggies starts with a 9, then it is classified as organic (but organic classifications vary, so be aware). If it starts with a 4 or 3, then it is classified as conventional, which means pesticides may have been applied (safe to say in most cases that they have been considering the volume of usage). If it starts with an 8, then it is genetically engineered (it's pretty rare to find this on any produce anymore - no one wants to admit to it).

- Talk to the grocer. You see them stocking the fruits and veggies - spend a minute or two and tell them about how you refuse to buy the conventional produce. Ask them if they know where the food came from, and if they trust the grower.

- If you're really passionate, write your politicians. You can bet the people that make pesticides are talking to them as well. You may not be able to put as much money in their pockets, but if they hear at least one contrary opinion, they may think twice.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[D22369 0]

do you really think that farmers spend their money for something that doesnt work?

this whole valley that I live in is full of hop/ fruit/ vegetable fields.

If the pesticides didnt work, they wouldnt spend lots of $$ on them...


It is a complete fairytale to think that we can produce enough food to meet the need by using organic methods, dont get me wrong, it would be very nice, but simply will not work, too many farkin people...

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

do you really think that farmers spend their money for something that doesnt work?

this whole valley that I live in is full of hop/ fruit/ vegetable fields.

If the pesticides didnt work, they wouldnt spend lots of $$ on them...


It is a complete fairytale to think that we can produce enough food to meet the need by using organic methods, dont get me wrong, it would be very nice, but simply will not work, too many farkin people...

Roy

I'm thinking that pesticides make food LOOK better in the grocery store, rather than improving quantity or quality of the produce.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[D22369 0]

I'm thinking that pesticides make food LOOK better in the grocery store***


As I understand it, (explanation from a farmer) the pesticides have extra chemicals added to them to produce this effect.

another thing to think of is the environmentalists have restricted or eliminated the majority of the really effective pesticides that were used in the past.
parathyon, formaldathyon - *note the spellings may be incorrect, but these chemicals worked quite well in reducing crop damage, they were banned some years ago.

pesticides are a necessary evil, without them you better hire alot of laborers with flyswatters...

some growers have been using pherome attractants to trap/kill pests, these work..... sometimes


Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[billvon 3,116]

> do you really think that farmers spend their money for something that
> doesnt work?

It used to work, then insects evolved resistance to the various pesticides. Often it's just inertia keeping some pesticides in the field. Over 500 species of pests have developed pesticide resistance, and that shows.

>It is a complete fairytale to think that we can produce enough food to
>meet the need by using organic methods . . .

Don't confuse reduction in pesticide use with organic methods! The primary tool farmers use to increase production nowadays is artificial (ammonia-based) fertilizer. Pesticides play a very minor role. You could go pesticide-free much more easily than you could go fertilizer-free.

[D22369 0]

pesticides as I understand it also protect against many forms of disease and rot.

I doubt that we will be going pesticide free anytime soon.

would be nice! and I hope we can achieve it soon...

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[ryoder 1,590]

Just last week I heard in the local news that they are now finding traces of the chemical used to combat the pine beetles in the mountains, in the Denver water supply. Swell. At least I won't need to worry about becoming infected by pine beetles.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Gene03 0]

Quote

> do you really think that farmers spend their money for something that
> doesnt work? yes, it's called advertising.

It used to work, then insects evolved resistance to the various pesticides.true Often it's just inertia keeping some pesticides in the field. Over 500 species of pests have developed pesticide resistance, and that shows.true, though your figures are underestimated/incorrect

>It is a complete fairytalefalse to think that we can produce enough food to
>meet the need by using organic methods . . .FALSE

Don't confuse reduction in pesticide use with organic methods!true The primary tool farmers use to increase production nowadays is artificial (ammonia-based) fertilizer.true Pesticides play a very minor role. You could go pesticide-free much more easily than you could go fertilizer-free.true

Uhm, Bill, compost and recycled/recovered crop waste (manure, etc) IS fertilizer.

The basic premise is;
Feed the bacteria in the soil.
The bacteria control the balance and in turn feed the plants.
And you know the rest.

How did the worlds' population survive until post WW2 without modern, scientific, chemical assisted farming methods?

And no, in spite of your Malthusion ideals, population control is not the correct answer.

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[billvon 3,116]

>Uhm, Bill, compost and recycled/recovered crop waste (manure, etc) IS fertilizer.

Absolutely. That's how things used to work, back when productivity was considerably lower.

>How did the worlds' population survive until post WW2 without modern,
>scientific, chemical assisted farming methods?

By using more traditional farming methods, and growing far less food per acre. If we had the real estate and the water we could indeed revert to such a system.

>And no, in spite of your Malthusion ideals, population control is not the
>correct answer.

I don't have "Malthusion" ideals.

[riddler 0]

Quote

I'm thinking that pesticides make food LOOK better in the grocery store, rather than improving quantity or quality of the produce.

From what I know, the look of the food has more to do with other factors, such as packaging and shipping methods. In the case of many fruits and vegetables, like apples, melons, grapefruit, peaches, oranges, rutabagas, cucumbers, squash, and tomatoes, the conventional ones are waxed to replace the natural wax coating that is damaged by washing at the factory. Many organic farms refuse to wax their fruits and veggies, and so when you see them a week later in the store, they won't have the same new shine that the waxed ones do.

Quote

Uhm, Bill, compost and recycled/recovered crop waste (manure, etc) IS fertilizer.

The organic food standards distinguish between artificial fertilizer and natural fertilizer. And for good reason. The effect of artificial fertilizer on humans is not understood, but there is a definite environmental impact. Farms can lose sustainability over time from the use of artificial fertilizer.

Quote

do you really think that farmers spend their money for something that doesnt work?

Yes, I do. If a farmer has been using pesticides their entire lives because that's what their fathers did, and their fathers used pesticides their entire lives because chemical companies promised larger yields (which apparently didn't happen), then they are going to be reluctant to change those practices. That's human nature - we've always been doing it this way, we don't want to risk change, and we can't commit to doing something better. Not many farmers can risk an entire year's crop to try changing that practice.

But this is one of the few times that consumers can make a difference with informed choices.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Gene03 0]

Okay, you have me on that point.
Malthusian is what I meant.

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[Gene03 0]

Quote

>Uhm, Bill, compost and recycled/recovered crop waste (manure, etc) IS fertilizer.

Absolutely. That's how things used to work, back when productivity was considerably lower.

>How did the worlds' population survive until post WW2 without modern,
>scientific, chemical assisted farming methods?

By using more traditional farming methods, and growing far less food per acre. If we had the real estate and the water we could indeed revert to such a system.

>And no, in spite of your Malthusion ideals, population control is not the
>correct answer.

I don't have "Malthusion" ideals.

I believe we could feed the world or at least our own countrymen with Biodynamic French Intensive methods.
I've been growing my garden using this method for years and most folks just can't believe you can get so much production out of a small area.
BFI is an old, old method that is slowly being rediscovered.

Google it and enjoy the info.
If you like to garden, try the methods and I think you will be pleasantly surprised with the results.

Peace, Gene03 out.

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[billvon 3,116]

>I believe we could feed the world or at least our own countrymen with
>Biodynamic French Intensive methods.

I agree. It would take more land than we have, though, and a radical change in our current fertilization scheme. It would cost more, too - fertilizer is cheaper than compost. That's not to say it's not doable or desirable, but it would be a lot of work.

>If you like to garden, try the methods and I think you will be pleasantly
>surprised with the results.

We already use many of those techniques. We use raised beds and drip irrigation, cultivate to the bottom of the beds (18 inches) and use both a regular composter and a vermiculture composter for soil amendment. We still don't have enough compost to do that well, so we often have to add commercial compost. (We'd have enough if we used a composting toilet to "close the loop" so to speak but I'm not willing to spend the time to ensure good sterilization of the compost.)

We also grow compatible plants (sugar snap peas and broccoli for example) to capitalize on the nitrogen fixers. We're looking at crops like corn to get a good rotation going.

Their idea on getting rid of the bed walls is interesting, though. They probably have a few tricks that would be helpful for our (terrible) soil here.

[Gene03 0]

Glad I could help.
I bought John Jeavons book over 25 years ago and never looked back on row gardening.

Food production would take a big time change and a major mindset change also.

I don't use sides on my bed just round it for more surface area.

You tried a cover crop and then tilling back into the soil?

Some thing I came across a few days ago and will try this summer is an Aztec or Mayan practice of smouldering wood to create charcoal and turning that into the soil.
Supposedly the charcoal holds nutrients and then releases them when needed.
I'll see if I can find that site again for you.
Or just post it here if you find it first, please.

Found a few.
Google search http://www.google.com/search?q=Mayan+%2B+charcoal+%2B+soil&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=10&sa=N
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1017-amazon.html
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=4407.msg165417;boardseen
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=fc72c2b657ee84d429cf5e308aaf6d61&topic=4407.0[/url
Better search [url]http://www.google.com/search?q=%22terra%2Bpreta%2Bsoil&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[Gene03 0]

Better search
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22terra%2Bpreta%2Bsoil&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Sorry about the thread drift/hijack, Riddler.

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)