3 ms·

The Guardian is really going mad. The article claims this is a myth, but give no arguments of why they think it's untrue. The only thing relevant to crop yields

The Guardian is really going mad. The article claims this is a myth, but give no arguments of why they think it's untrue. The only thing relevant to crop yields is: > The UN FAO is clear on this – without crop protection tools, farmers could lose as much as 80% of their harvests to damaging insects, weeds and plant disease. There is not even a section in the UN report about the benefits of pesticides.

mitchtbaum 8y ago
I guess the question then is which ones to use, whether "synthetic" or "organic".
fabatka 8y ago
I think another relevant part of the argument is the 6th paragraph: > Elver said many of the pesticides are used on commodity crops, such as palm oil and soy, not the food needed by the world’s hungry people: “The corporations are not dealing with world hunger, they are dealing with more agricultural activity on large scales.”
oldcynic 8y ago
"said a spokesman for the Crop Protection Association, which represents pesticide manufacturers"
- akvadrako 8y ago
  Are you saying the UN FAO's position is otherwise?
  - oldcynic 8y ago
    I am saying I would expect the trade body to carefully and selectively phrase their responses for the sole benefit of the trade. "could lose as much as 80%" (but will usually be far less). A study that came shortly after this one points to clear over-use and that reducing use would actually increase yields: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/06/farms-could-slash-pesticide-use-without-losses-research-reveals https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/06/farms-co...
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
The report (linked to in the article above) addresses this in multiple points (though it doesn't use the word "myth"): 2. Despite the harms associated with excessive and unsafe pesticide practices, it is commonly argued that intensive industrial agriculture, which is heavily reliant on pesticide inputs, is necessary to increase yields to feed a growing world population, particularly in the light of negative climate change impacts and global scarcity of farmlands. Indeed, over the past 50 years, the global population has more than doubled, while available arable land has only increased by about 10 per cent.5 Evolving technology in pesticide manufacture, among other agricultural innovations, has certainly helped to keep agricultural production apace of unprecedented jumps in food demand. However, this has come at the expense of human health and the environment. Equally, increased food production has not succeeded in eliminating hunger worldwide. Reliance on hazardous pesticides is a short-term solution that undermines the rights to adequate food and health for present and future generations. 91. The assertion promoted by the agrochemical industry that pesticides are necessary to achieve food security is not only inaccurate, but dangerously misleading. In principle, there is adequate food to feed the world; inequitable production and distribution systems present major blockages that prevent those in need from accessing it. Ironically, many of those who are food insecure are in fact subsistence farmers engaged in agricultural work, particularly in lower-income countries. The "myth" is named so by the author of the study, UN special rapporteur on the right to food. From the article: “It is a myth,” said Hilal Elver, the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to food. “Using more pesticides is nothing to do with getting rid of hunger. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), we are able to feed 9 billion people today. Production is definitely increasing, but the problem is poverty, inequality and distribution.” At least the Guardian then is reporting what has been said, or written in the quoted study.

mitchtbaum 8y ago

I guess the question then is which ones to use, whether "synthetic" or "organic".

fabatka 8y ago

I think another relevant part of the argument is the 6th paragraph: > Elver said many of the pesticides are used on commodity crops, such as palm oil and soy, not the food needed by the world’s hungry people: “The corporations are not dealing with world hunger, they are dealing with more agricultural activity on large scales.”

oldcynic 8y ago

"said a spokesman for the Crop Protection Association, which represents pesticide manufacturers"

akvadrako 8y ago
Are you saying the UN FAO's position is otherwise?
- oldcynic 8y ago
  I am saying I would expect the trade body to carefully and selectively phrase their responses for the sole benefit of the trade. "could lose as much as 80%" (but will usually be far less). A study that came shortly after this one points to clear over-use and that reducing use would actually increase yields: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/06/farms-could-slash-pesticide-use-without-losses-research-reveals https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/06/farms-co...

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

The report (linked to in the article above) addresses this in multiple points (though it doesn't use the word "myth"): 2. Despite the harms associated with excessive and unsafe pesticide practices, it is commonly argued that intensive industrial agriculture, which is heavily reliant on pesticide inputs, is necessary to increase yields to feed a growing world population, particularly in the light of negative climate change impacts and global scarcity of farmlands. Indeed, over the past 50 years, the global population has more than doubled, while available arable land has only increased by about 10 per cent.5 Evolving technology in pesticide manufacture, among other agricultural innovations, has certainly helped to keep agricultural production apace of unprecedented jumps in food demand. However, this has come at the expense of human health and the environment. Equally, increased food production has not succeeded in eliminating hunger worldwide. Reliance on hazardous pesticides is a short-term solution that undermines the rights to adequate food and health for present and future generations. 91. The assertion promoted by the agrochemical industry that pesticides are necessary to achieve food security is not only inaccurate, but dangerously misleading. In principle, there is adequate food to feed the world; inequitable production and distribution systems present major blockages that prevent those in need from accessing it. Ironically, many of those who are food insecure are in fact subsistence farmers engaged in agricultural work, particularly in lower-income countries. The "myth" is named so by the author of the study, UN special rapporteur on the right to food. From the article: “It is a myth,” said Hilal Elver, the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to food. “Using more pesticides is nothing to do with getting rid of hunger. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), we are able to feed 9 billion people today. Production is definitely increasing, but the problem is poverty, inequality and distribution.” At least the Guardian then is reporting what has been said, or written in the quoted study.