Newsflash, foodies: Organic crops use carcinogenic pesticides

[HuckleB]

http://deadstate.org/newsflash-foodies-organic-crops-use-carcinogenic-pesticides/

"The organic food industry spends billions of dollars through different organizations, subtly using fear and panic as tactics to sell their products. However, it turns out their actual practices may be a foodie’s worst nightmare.

While the organic food industry sinks a lot of money into spreading fear, uncertainty, and distrust toward Monsanto and GMOs, they themselves are utilizing large quantities of proven carcinogenic (cancer-causing) pesticides to grow their alleged superior products. The organic food industry, which is worth roughly four times as much as Monsanto ($65 billion), owes its brand to this facade.

Below is a list of Organic substances which are far more toxic than anything you’ll see on a GMO (which is why about 90% of certain crop farmers grow GMOs; they are far better for the environment). The full list of permitted organic substances can be found on the EPA’s website.

...

Originally, no one thought to check the potential harmful effects of natural chemicals, like organic pesticides. Even after studies were done showing roughly half of the commonly used organic pesticides to be carcinogenic, the organic industry still continues to use them.

..."


-------------------------------------------------------------

Forget What You’ve Heard: Organic Food Is Not Food Grown Without Pesticides
http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/forget-what-youve-heard-organic-food-is-not-food-grown-without-pesticides

"In a paper about to be published in The Proceedings of the Royal Society, a team of researchers identifies something they call the "paradox of unanimity." If you've ever smelled a rat when everyone else is celebrating an idea then this paradox is for you. While unanimous agreement (or something close to it) might suggest that a particular claim is right, the researchers, led by Lachlan J. Gunn, an engineer at the University of Adelaide in Australia, found the opposite to be true. Rather than confirming truth, unanimity indicates that something went wrong, that a "systemic failure" undermined popular judgment, that the confidence of the crowd has been skewed by bias.

As it's currently framed, the paradox applies primarily to criminal justice concerns—police line-ups and the like. But it also has implications for food and agriculture. Few fields of popular interest have cultivated a wider array of glib axioms of empowerment than food: genetically modified organisms are bad, local is better, you shouldn't eat food your grandmother wouldn't eat, and so on. In the context of Main Street foodie wisdom, these claims enjoy something close to unanimity. But, for all their support, none comes closer to the unanimity quotient than the gilded assertion that organic food is food grown without pesticides.

...

But what's more interesting in this case is the possible explanation. Why was there synthetic residue on organic crops? The most logical culprits are drift from nearby farms growing crops conventionally and cross contamination from the bins used for harvesting both organic and conventional crops (many farms grow both). "Many of the detections are at such low levels they fit th[e]se scenarios," according to Savage. In other words, yes, makes sense.

One likely response to the drift dilemma is to argue that organic produce deserves better protection. That perhaps there should be laws requiring conventional agriculture to keep its distance from the organic good guys. But the problem with this objection is not only that, as indicated, many farmers grow both organically and conventionally, but that (as a conventional apple grower once told me) organic farmers sometimes want to be around the conventional growers because pesticide drift helps reduce pests on their farms as well.

..."


---------------------------------------------------------------

Berry interesting.

[JoeyT]

1. Many pesticides have a repellent effect.

I've seen it when I spray pyrethroids. It'll start as a nice peaceful field, and within a few minutes of me starting spraying there's a mass exodus of grasshopers coming out the opposite end. So being near conventionally sprayed fields is probably the only thing keeping them in produce to sell.

I'd bet a big part of the problem is farmers want to go organic because they make more money, but it's a massive pain in the ass. So they grow "organic" food that they just spray like they always have. I know that happens, because I know a guy that did exactly that. He grows both organic and conventional produce, and the only difference is what truck it goes on.

[progressoid]

2. Regarding pesticides and apple trees.

In many fruit producing areas not only do they use pesticides, it's the law. Organic or not.

I found out about it from a family member living in Washington. I think Oregon has similar laws.

http://ext100.wsu.edu/wallawalla/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2013/07/Backyard-Apple-Trees.pdf

Local ordinances specify that YOU, the owner, are responsible for controlling destructive pests of fruit trees on your property. This is true whether you plant the tree yourself, or buy property with fruit trees already on it. Although these ordinances apply to all types of fruit trees, apple trees present one of the worst problems.

[Wilms]

3. That's one hell of a misleading headline.

Here, I'm picturing DDT being sprayed on broccoli. No. The detected pesticides are suspected to a result of "drift".

Nice going, Huck. A lot of people hang out on DU to avoid nonsense.

Another mess I have to clean up for you.

[HuckleB]

4. That's one hell of a misleading response.

You didn't read the first link at all, apparently. Why am I not surprised? And why are you even posting in this group?

Oh, and, to clarify, you've never "cleaned up" anything for me. You have only promoted baseless misinformation that was shown for what it is, as we see here yet again. Why would you make such a post? Are you willfully trying to mislead others? Hmm.

[Wilms]

5. I did. Both. Carefully.

So here we go again. What did I get wrong, Huck? Your headline (yes, theirs) suggests that the organic farmers are employing these pesticides, but the article fesses up and explains that it is likey "drift" from other farms or their own plots that is at issue.

Is that correct? Or not.

The headline of your article is misleading.

[HuckleB]

6. You clearly did no such thing. Article two is not a continuation from article one.

The two articles are discussing different, but related, issues. You know that, and if you don't, well, WOW! Regardless, it's time for you to stop promoting misinformation. The reality that organic farmers use very carcinogenic pesticides may not be to your liking, but the headline is accurate. The fact that they also may rely on drift of less toxic synthetics is another concern in and of itself. Your responses are ludicrous.

[Wilms]

7. WTF, Huck?

"Clearly did no such thing"? How yoyu came up with that may be how you come up with other erroneous ideas.

Again, Huck, (and please FOCUS), what have I posted, specifically, that is in error?

Stay with me, Huck! You can do it! Answer the question.

[HuckleB]

8. I've already explained that in my last post Apparently, you don't read my responses either.

Sheesh.

Why are you feigning in this manner? It's bizarre. It's time to acknowledge reality.

[Wilms]

9. One of us can't read.

You presented a list of pesticides that the EPA allows to found in organic food. You did not present any info suggesting it was intentionally used. You offered reason to believe that it instead drifted.

If you got a link saying that it is used on purpose...and you just might...that's what you could post.

Then we can discuss how big business is moving heavily into organics...at which point you can expect funny-business.

[HuckleB]

10. And the misleading propaganda keeps coming.

WOW! You really push a line of bull when you push a line of bull. You know full well those pesticides are used, and yet you are pretending otherwise. This is some of most ridiculous nonsense I've seen in some time. You actually tried to play that?

Again: WOW!

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/06/the_biggest_myth_about_organic_farming.html

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/06/18/137249264/organic-pesticides-not-an-oxymoron

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/the_kids/2014/01/organic_vs_conventional_produce_for_kids_you_don_t_need_to_fear_pesticides.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html

http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2013/06/organic-pesticides.html

https://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2015/11/12/the-risk-mongers-dirty-dozen-12-highly-toxic-pesticides-approved-for-use-in-organic-farming/

[Wilms]

11. Thank you, Huck.

Exactly what I thought would be more helpful...though it needs a lot of culling.

As stated within some of them, it is unclear if the organic pesticides are unsafe...as compared to the inorganic ones conventionally used. We also don't know who is using it. As I stated upthread, Big Farm is moving into the lucrative organic market. I suspect you would find them advocating for looser organic standards. I recall a fight over this in Oregon last year.

That debate, and the noise it creates, is no reason to give up reason and honorably sift through the data

One of the articles cited varied benefits of organic farming. That's what my interest in it is, mostly. Less chemicals hitting the environment, less water, less fuel...it doesn't always work well...but people are trying to earn how to grow while having the least impact. That's a good thing.

[HuckleB]

12. Oh, brother. Big Organic doesn't want you to know about any of it.

And it doesn't want you to know how much organic pesticide residue is on the food.

And we do know how harmful the various pesticides are, so please don't pretend otherwise.

Also, if you know this little about the topic, it would be wise to stop pretending to "correct" others with your very limited knowledge.

BTW, it's not like that list of links is any big deal. I could go on and on and on with links. This is all well known to those who look.

[Wilms]

13. I'm sure they don't.

They don't want little organic to be heard.

The links YOU provided suggested we do NOT know about all of them. So let go of the "correcting" projection?

In fact, my knowledge is not necessarily any larger than that provided by YOUR links to make the assertions I make. So when one of your articles refers to "drift", I'm smart enough to realize that it does not mean "used by", despite the title or any other spin.

Simple.

Just like our other problem thread, where I was forced to insist that the word "banned" means "banned". No reason for that, Huck. You're an intelligent enough person. In fact, there are a number of countries that ban a number of GMOs. Period.

[HuckleB]

14. Little organic is no better.

It lies through its teeth to con people into buying its products, too. The ludicrous demonization of other farmers by the organic industry is one of the most unethical marketing pushes in history. The only problem with any thread here has been your posts, which have shown a level of ignorance and/or a willingness to push that same unethical propaganda. It's not ok, either way.

If you want to discuss, then it's time for you to do in an honest manner.

[Wilms]

15. The record stands...

projections notwithstanding.

[HuckleB]

16. That's funny.

it does, and it's not supporting your baseless prejudices in any way, shape, or form.



But, seriously, why is it so hard for you to realize what's really going on here?

Why are you so adamant about promoting the baseless, fear-based propaganda of the organic marketing scam? And why am I wondering about possible sock puppets now? Hmm.