5 ms·

The primary reason most people who eat organic food do so is to avoid consuming pesticides and herbicides. I have yet to read a single study indicating that co

The primary reason most people who eat organic food do so is to avoid consuming pesticides and herbicides. I have yet to read a single study indicating that consuming pesticides is good for health, but if anyone has such a study I'd love to read it.

kolbe 9y ago
The purpose of pesticides is not to add healthfulness to food. I doubt even the most scummy Monsanto PR rep would claim that. I think the goal is to make the yield/health tradeoff equation balance out. Usually that's done by claiming the pesticides have little to no health consequences.
dekhn 9y ago
organic farming uses pesticides, they're just organic pesticides.
- technotony 9y ago
  Yes, and they can be just as dangerous to health. People seem to fail to realize that natural isn't synonymous with harmless, plenty of natural things will kill you so we shouldn't be surprised that 'natural' pesticides are also dangerous, maybe more so as they haven't been through the same safety studies synthetic ones have to go through. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/pesticides-food-fears/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/pesticide...
  - cwkoss 9y ago
    Some organic pesticides are dangerous. These seem to mostly be problematic when natural ingredients are industrially concentrated. Also, seems some companies sell synthetics that can be derived from plants, but aren't for economic reasons, and still call them "organic". (Personally, I think calling an substance derived from plants but which is extracted with a number of synthetic and toxic chemicals is kind of stretching the meaning of the term 'organic' to the breaking point). There are many that are much more safe: neem oil, citrus oil, tobacco, salt water, baking soda water, chili powder, soap. I think that the presumption of danger from pesticides derived from plants humans have been living alongside for millennia should be less than novel synthetics that may have only existed for a decade or two.
    - technotony 9y ago
      What's the basis for that presumption? Are you arguing humans evolved during that period to be less affected by the natural chemicals? Are you invoking some kind of gaia hypothesis? A chemical is a chemical whether it's natural or synthetic, there are plenty of natural chemicals which will easily kill you. If anything novel synthetics that have been through a rigorous regulatory review process should seem safer than natural chemicals whose toxicity has been less well studied.
      - cwkoss 9y ago
        The basis of the presumption is that if humans have been to exposed to something for 1000 years and we haven't noticed an effect yet, its less likely that we'll notice an effect in the future vs a substance for which we have no data about human exposure. Certainly many 'all-natural' chemicals can be highly toxic, but because we have a history of interacting with the plants that produce them, most of these harmful chemicals we already have some idea that they may be dangerous.
- kkmnkhjn 9y ago
  What the hell are organic pesticides?
  - dekhn 9y ago
    Well, a pesticide is by definition something that kills pests. Plants and other organisms already make pesticides naturally; organic pesticides are naturally derived, rather than synthetically produced. Pyrethrums would be one example: https://www.amazon.com/Insecticide-Organic-Pyganic-Pyrethrin-Products/dp/B004ICK05G https://www.amazon.com/Insecticide-Organic-Pyganic-Pyrethrin... Rotenone would be another: https://www.amazon.com/Bonide-Chemical-Number-4-Garden-Dust/dp/B000OW9474 https://www.amazon.com/Bonide-Chemical-Number-4-Garden-Dust/...
  - alejohausner 9y ago
    Pyrethrin comes from crysanthemums, nicotine from tobacco, and they are both natural insecticides. Plants have been inventing stuff to kill bugs long before we came up with synthetic poisons.
ensignavenger 9y ago
I am pretty sure consuming food with small pesticide residue is much healthier than starving to. If you have a working method to maintain crop yields while eliminating all pesticide use and not increasing cost significantly, I think there would be a lot of people interested, and probably a lot of money to earned.
- Fej 9y ago
  Robots. If you have a small machine that constantly plucks weeds, you don't need herbicides. Not sure about pesticides.
  - ensignavenger 9y ago
    Autonomous tractors are totally a thing. They will only get better with time and development, but they can't replace pesticides yet.
    - robbiep 9y ago
      You're conflating pesticides and herbicides
      - grzm 9y ago
        I understand the distinction you're making. My understanding has been that pesticide is a term that includes both insecticides and herbicides. > Pesticides are substances that are meant to control pests or weeds. The term pesticide includes all of the following: herbicide, insecticide, insect growth regulator, nematicide, termiticide, molluscicide, piscicide, avicide, rodenticide, predacide, bactericide, insect repellent, animal repellent, antimicrobial, fungicide, disinfectant (antimicrobial), and sanitizer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide
        robbiep 9y ago
        My bad. As the child of farmers it's never been used this way where I'm from
jackmott 9y ago
organic food stillnhas those.
thaumasiotes 9y ago
> The primary reason most people who eat organic food do so is to avoid consuming pesticides and herbicides. Let's be clear. The primary reason most people who eat organic food do so is because they desire to conform to the values of their social group. It doesn't matter to them why their social group might have decided on this. No matter what the activity is, if it's defined in terms more specific than "eating", "sleeping", "breathing", or "reproducing", that is the primary reason most people who engage in it do so.
vanderZwan 9y ago
I remember reading a professor at Wageningen University claiming that vegetables grown with pesticides tended to have less carcinogens because they don't need to produce as many defensive chemicals of their own. I would like to see some research backing up that claim myself, though.

kolbe 9y ago

The purpose of pesticides is not to add healthfulness to food. I doubt even the most scummy Monsanto PR rep would claim that. I think the goal is to make the yield/health tradeoff equation balance out. Usually that's done by claiming the pesticides have little to no health consequences.

dekhn 9y ago

organic farming uses pesticides, they're just organic pesticides.

technotony 9y ago
Yes, and they can be just as dangerous to health. People seem to fail to realize that natural isn't synonymous with harmless, plenty of natural things will kill you so we shouldn't be surprised that 'natural' pesticides are also dangerous, maybe more so as they haven't been through the same safety studies synthetic ones have to go through. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/pesticides-food-fears/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/pesticide...
- cwkoss 9y ago
  Some organic pesticides are dangerous. These seem to mostly be problematic when natural ingredients are industrially concentrated. Also, seems some companies sell synthetics that can be derived from plants, but aren't for economic reasons, and still call them "organic". (Personally, I think calling an substance derived from plants but which is extracted with a number of synthetic and toxic chemicals is kind of stretching the meaning of the term 'organic' to the breaking point). There are many that are much more safe: neem oil, citrus oil, tobacco, salt water, baking soda water, chili powder, soap. I think that the presumption of danger from pesticides derived from plants humans have been living alongside for millennia should be less than novel synthetics that may have only existed for a decade or two.
  - technotony 9y ago
    What's the basis for that presumption? Are you arguing humans evolved during that period to be less affected by the natural chemicals? Are you invoking some kind of gaia hypothesis? A chemical is a chemical whether it's natural or synthetic, there are plenty of natural chemicals which will easily kill you. If anything novel synthetics that have been through a rigorous regulatory review process should seem safer than natural chemicals whose toxicity has been less well studied.
    - cwkoss 9y ago
      The basis of the presumption is that if humans have been to exposed to something for 1000 years and we haven't noticed an effect yet, its less likely that we'll notice an effect in the future vs a substance for which we have no data about human exposure. Certainly many 'all-natural' chemicals can be highly toxic, but because we have a history of interacting with the plants that produce them, most of these harmful chemicals we already have some idea that they may be dangerous.
kkmnkhjn 9y ago
What the hell are organic pesticides?
- dekhn 9y ago
  Well, a pesticide is by definition something that kills pests. Plants and other organisms already make pesticides naturally; organic pesticides are naturally derived, rather than synthetically produced. Pyrethrums would be one example: https://www.amazon.com/Insecticide-Organic-Pyganic-Pyrethrin-Products/dp/B004ICK05G https://www.amazon.com/Insecticide-Organic-Pyganic-Pyrethrin... Rotenone would be another: https://www.amazon.com/Bonide-Chemical-Number-4-Garden-Dust/dp/B000OW9474 https://www.amazon.com/Bonide-Chemical-Number-4-Garden-Dust/...
- alejohausner 9y ago
  Pyrethrin comes from crysanthemums, nicotine from tobacco, and they are both natural insecticides. Plants have been inventing stuff to kill bugs long before we came up with synthetic poisons.

ensignavenger 9y ago

I am pretty sure consuming food with small pesticide residue is much healthier than starving to. If you have a working method to maintain crop yields while eliminating all pesticide use and not increasing cost significantly, I think there would be a lot of people interested, and probably a lot of money to earned.

Fej 9y ago
Robots. If you have a small machine that constantly plucks weeds, you don't need herbicides. Not sure about pesticides.
- ensignavenger 9y ago
  Autonomous tractors are totally a thing. They will only get better with time and development, but they can't replace pesticides yet.
  - robbiep 9y ago
    You're conflating pesticides and herbicides
    - grzm 9y ago
      I understand the distinction you're making. My understanding has been that pesticide is a term that includes both insecticides and herbicides. > Pesticides are substances that are meant to control pests or weeds. The term pesticide includes all of the following: herbicide, insecticide, insect growth regulator, nematicide, termiticide, molluscicide, piscicide, avicide, rodenticide, predacide, bactericide, insect repellent, animal repellent, antimicrobial, fungicide, disinfectant (antimicrobial), and sanitizer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide
      - robbiep 9y ago
        My bad. As the child of farmers it's never been used this way where I'm from

jackmott 9y ago

organic food stillnhas those.

thaumasiotes 9y ago

> The primary reason most people who eat organic food do so is to avoid consuming pesticides and herbicides. Let's be clear. The primary reason most people who eat organic food do so is because they desire to conform to the values of their social group. It doesn't matter to them why their social group might have decided on this. No matter what the activity is, if it's defined in terms more specific than "eating", "sleeping", "breathing", or "reproducing", that is the primary reason most people who engage in it do so.

vanderZwan 9y ago

I remember reading a professor at Wageningen University claiming that vegetables grown with pesticides tended to have less carcinogens because they don't need to produce as many defensive chemicals of their own. I would like to see some research backing up that claim myself, though.