3 ms·

Organic standards allow use of copper sulphate (subject to more controls that non-organic certified produce) It is entirely false to characterize organic as "i

Organic standards allow use of copper sulphate (subject to more controls that non-organic certified produce) It is entirely false to characterize organic as "including heavy metals" when they simply allow a fairly common and light "heavy metal" compound which is already permitted outside their standards (ALL organic standards are permitted for non organic use) Its striking that you could begin by lamenting "sheer lack of nuance" and proceed to base an entire criticism on deceived and inaccurate nuance.

Nasrudith 8y ago
I was thinking of the lead arsenate used in apple orchards. Specifically its widespread use to combat moth epidemics that were causing major problems and is related to contamination of groundwater around them. It was first replaced by the technically less longterm contaminating DDT briefly before a less toxic effective replacement could be found. Apparently it was banned by the 80s so I messed up the specifics but the point is that "organic" old style pesticides were often worse in toxicity and are far more general in their targetting.
- strainer 8y ago
  Neither Lead salts or Arsenic are permitted by organic standards. No substances permitted by organic standards are not permitted under general standards. You can check §205.602 here : https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1... "I messed up the specifics but the point is that "organic" old style pesticides were often worse ..." You have not supported that argument, that organic certified pesticides were "often worse" You seem to be misapplying the term "organic" - its a movement/brand name, not a complete selection criteria. The name refers to the "organism" of the plant,animal,ecosystem. It is a general principle that permitted substances and practices should in addition to appearing safe in the immediate term - not be alien to the life and ecosystems involved (much decreasing the likelihood of unexpected reactions in longer term)

Nasrudith 8y ago

I was thinking of the lead arsenate used in apple orchards. Specifically its widespread use to combat moth epidemics that were causing major problems and is related to contamination of groundwater around them. It was first replaced by the technically less longterm contaminating DDT briefly before a less toxic effective replacement could be found. Apparently it was banned by the 80s so I messed up the specifics but the point is that "organic" old style pesticides were often worse in toxicity and are far more general in their targetting.

strainer 8y ago
Neither Lead salts or Arsenic are permitted by organic standards. No substances permitted by organic standards are not permitted under general standards. You can check §205.602 here : https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1... "I messed up the specifics but the point is that "organic" old style pesticides were often worse ..." You have not supported that argument, that organic certified pesticides were "often worse" You seem to be misapplying the term "organic" - its a movement/brand name, not a complete selection criteria. The name refers to the "organism" of the plant,animal,ecosystem. It is a general principle that permitted substances and practices should in addition to appearing safe in the immediate term - not be alien to the life and ecosystems involved (much decreasing the likelihood of unexpected reactions in longer term)