Organic pesticides can be more harmful than synthetics

[Paul Cherubini]

Choosing Organic Pesticides over Synthetic Pesticides May Not Effectively Mitigate Environmental Risk in Soybeans" Christine A. Bahlai, et al. School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph

"We conducted a two year, five site study to examine the performance of these insecticides against aphids, and selectivity with respect to natural enemies under field conditions

We found that in addition to reduced efficacy against aphids compared to novel synthetic insecticides, organic approved insecticides had a similar or even greater negative impact on several natural enemy species in lab studies, were more detrimental to biological control organisms in field experiments, and had higher Environmental Impact Quotients at field use rates.

Conclusions/Significance: These data bring into caution the widely held assumption that organic pesticides are more environmentally benign than synthetic ones. All pesticides must be evaluated using an empirically-based risk assessment, because generalizations based on chemical origin do not hold true in all cases."

[blazing star]

Please post a link to the article so that interested parties can read the whole thing and be sure that the entire context of the article was not amended by your clip and paste actions. Until then, I recommend that everyone perform their own research on this topic to arrive at an informed conclusion.

[Paul Cherubini]

Choosing Organic Pesticides over Synthetic Pesticides May Not Effectively Mitigate Environmental Risk in Soybeans
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0011250

[blazing star]

Thank you.

You named this entire thread in a sensational manner. The true paper on which this article is based is titled: "Choosing Organic Pesticides over Synthetic Pesticides May Not Effectively Mitigate Environmental Risk in Soybeans." From where did you glean information that organics may be more harmful than synthetics and why did you eliminate the fact that this study related only to soybean treatment? Both of your acts can amend how someone is interpreting your information. Also, I'm not a scientist but in reading the comments of the two people that posted comments on this study, there are flaws that need to be addressed before a reader can accept this study as useful.

A link to the entire paper can be found through this website: http://facultas.wordpress.com/2010/07/2 ... -soybeans/

[Paul Cherubini]

where did you glean information that organics may be more harmful than synthetics

On Page 3 in the Discussion section of their paper the authors wrote:

“our results show that with regards to environmental impact, target selectivity and efficacy, the novel synthetic insecticides we tested have better performance than organic insecticides"

and they further wrote: "certified organic systems may reject the [novel synthetic insecticides] technology with the smallest environmental impact based on ideology."

In plain english the authors found the synthetics were more effective against the target soybean aphids yet they didn't harm the non-target natural enemies of the soybean aphids as much. Therefore soybean fields treated with synthetics yielded a greater tonnage of soybeans, hence less land is required to produce a given tonnage which in turn saves habitat for wildlife.

[blazing star]

You are jumping to your own conclusions again. The actual conclusion of the study, which is:

"These data bring into caution the widely held assumption that organic pesticides are more environmentally benign than synthetic ones. All pesticides must be evaluated using an empirically-based risk assessment, because generalizations based on chemical origin do not hold true in all cases."

does not mention anything about how wildlife habitat is enhanced by use of your synthetic chemicals. All it states is that all pesticides, organic or synthetic, must be evaluated to determine risk to the environment. I can agree with this as it's widely known that just because something is organic, does not mean it is safe. My stance is that no pesticide, organic or synthetic, is good and that a balanced ecosystem, with beneficial insects, is the safest means of crop production/management.

[Paul Cherubini]

You are jumping to your own conclusions again.

I did not jump to my own conclusion. In their paper in Figure 2 the authors showed a graph of how the yield of soybeans (in tons per hectare) was roughly 7-8% greater in the fields treated with the synthetic insecticides vs the fields treated with organic insecticides. Thus the math realities are that if there is a 7-8% greater yield in the synthetic treated fields, 7-8% less land is required to grow the same tonnage of soybeans which is obviously good for wildlife. Indeed that's the whole problem with organic farming; i.e. most of the wilderness land that's still left on the planet would need to be plowed if the whole world
adopted organic farming methods.

[blazing star]

From one study, and it should be noted that there are scientists that take issue with the validity of the study, you extrapolate that the planet would have a lot more wildlife habitat if everyone universally accepted and applied broad kill range synthetic toxins throughout the planet.

Here is an article that contradicts your article. This article sites little difference in crop yield:

http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/a ... rming.html

Additionally, there are numerous other benefits by applying organic farming that will allow any reader of this information to deduce that the small percentage of crop yield potentially lost will be made up from the additional benefits that organic landscaping affords us. The benefits of organic farming can be quantified, but not limited to:

* Organic farming is more cost effective. It reduces the production cost by about 25-30%, because it does not involve the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.
* It retains 40% more topsoil, thus increasing the crop yield up to five-fold within five years.
* Organic farming is more profitable because it reduces water use, nutrient-contamination by pesticides, and reduced soil erosion.
* It also enables the farmers to use the soil for a longer period of time to grow crops as soil fertility is maintained for a long time.
* Cattle grazing on organic farmlands have been found to be less prone to diseases, and they yield more healthy milk.
* Products or foodstuffs produced from organic farming do not contain any sort of artificial flavors or preservatives.
* Due to the absence of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, the original nutritional content of food is preserved.
* Organic farming also helps reduce the occurrence of many ailments, and speeds the recovery process by boosting the immune system.

Resource allocation and conservation will become increasingly important with an ever expanding population to feed and it's clear that organic farming is the way of the future.

Maybe you should consider selling organic farming compounds and stop selling your synthetic toxins. I think you would get in front of the curve and then you can start posting information that is both logical and of sense. Just a thought.........

[crazymilkweedman]

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane is a synthetic pesticide , since you think they are so great,maybe you should put some on your lettuce so you can really enjoy your salad!!!!Let me know how that works out for ya!

[Paul Cherubini]

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane is a synthetic pesticide , since you think they are so great,maybe you should put some on your lettuce so you can really enjoy your salad!!!!Let me know how that works out for ya!

Someone else has already done that. Professor J. Gordon Edwards of San Jose State University in California lived to be 84, yet he used to “eat a teaspoon full of DDT, on a weekly basis to demonstrate the lack of toxicity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Gordon_ ... ountaineer)

[Mona Miller]

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane is a synthetic pesticide , since you think they are so great,maybe you should put some on your lettuce so you can really enjoy your salad!!!!Let me know how that works out for ya!

Someone else has already done that. Professor J. Gordon Edwards of San Jose State University in California lived to be 84, yet he used to “eat a teaspoon full of DDT, on a weekly basis to demonstrate the lack of toxicity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Gordon_ ... ountaineer)

"he claimed to do on a weekly basis" -- Not verified.

[crazymilkweedman]

yeah the American Bald eagles did it too..not on salads persay..yet they and many other birds were found to have high levels of ddt toxicity in their egg shells which caused them to break when being incubated...so Paul ..if you try the salad and then lay an egg ..perhaps we can verify that AGAIN!

[crazymilkweedman]

yes yes know about him. Edwards insisted that "no human beings have ever been harmed by DDT." According to 21st Century Science and Technology, a photograph appeared in the September, 1971 issue of Esquire magazine, showing Edwards eating a teaspoon full of DDT, which he ((claimed and very well may have done)) on a weekly basis to demonstrate the lack of toxicity of DDT for humans and vertebrate animals...which of coarse includes Monarch butterflies!!!!LMAO! You might as well say we should base ALL future medication approvals for humans based on whether or not they harm ants!your "logic" is facinating!