12 ms·

Organophosphates are like the primary insecticide used worldwide. How do you replace it? I don't see anywhere where they propose an alternative.

jbob2000 8y ago
Distributed farming. If you grow all your food in one area, guess where the insects are going to go...
- pjc50 8y ago
  Farming is distributed over large areas of land called "fields", or when you have a lot of these over an even bigger area, "Ohio".
- black6 8y ago
  The monoculture status quo certainly takes some of the blame. In a balanced ecosystem, no one pest can gain a foothold because the ecosystem supports natural predators, and the foodsource is spread out enough that the pest population won't reach a critical mass.
John_KZ 8y ago
They could be replaced, but the question becomes which one would be better (or worse). Additionally there are other ways to tackle this problem. Ensure usage is not allowed near residential areas, give warning or make sure everyone dusts only on particular dates. Lots of ways to solve this. Banning things that sound bad won't help. We'll end up banning everything. The concerns are valid, raising awareness is always good, but a solid plan is needed before we change the way we do agriculture.
chabes 8y ago
Organic farmers don’t use them
- reacweb 8y ago
  and forbid GMO (at least in France).
  - romed 8y ago
    USDA Organic program also excludes GMOs.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  "Organic" Farmers aren't very well defined unfortunately. They do use pesticides, but "organic" ones. The overriding pattern is that "Organic" farmers use stuff that is all natural. (for some... fuzzy... definition of all natural) But we all know that Rattlesnake venom is 100% organic and all natural. So I'm personally not sure if the distinction between "synthetic" and "organic" is very appropriate. Nature can certainly mass-produce poisons that can be detrimental to humans. The Pesticide problem is rather simple: we want to spray a poison onto our plants that kills insects, but doesn't harm humans (or the plants). Whether you use an "organic" pesticide or "synthetic" one, the fact remains that you are consistently spraying poisons. And these poisons haven't been very well tested for long-term low-level exposure levels. Be it organic or synthetic.
  - aethertap 8y ago
    Slightly tangential, but regarding the definition of "natural," I personally prefer to think in terms of concentrates. The chemicals in question exist in nature in many cases, or at least there is a similar naturally occurring compound. The main thing that I think makes a useful distinction is the concentration level. Like other drugs, the danger is in the dose, and the extreme levels of potency we can get with a little chemistry is what makes them "natural" or "synthetic" in my opinion (regardless of their actual origin). I'm more cautious accepting highly concentrated substances than I am accepting the same thing diluted with the thousands of other naturally occurring substances that accompany it "in the wild."
    - wahern 8y ago
dragontamer 8y ago
I mean, its sorta why GMOs exist. To reduce the need of pesticides that are sprayed on farms. I've always considered GMOs to be the lesser evil when compared to standard pesticide usage. Not all produce have a insect-resistant type however. So pesticides are still needed to protect certain plants.
- tomp 8y ago
  How does it work in practice though? Monsanto's RoundUp hasn't been getting rave reviews lately ...
  - tynpeddler 8y ago
    That's a pr problem, not a science problem. But you bring up a good point, even if you come up with the perfect technical solution, if people are suspicious, or there are bad actors out there with pseudoscience products to sell, you can get dumpstered for no good reason. The fact that we're struggling to maintain herd immunity in certain population segments tells you how hard it can be to defend good solutions in the face of irrational paranoia.
  - slacka 8y ago
    Why are you conflating RoundUp (NOT even a pesticide) with all GMOs? Attacking GMO technology because of one company's misuse is like attacking electricity because of the electric chair. We're talking about replacing pesticides. Monsanto is in the business of selling herbicides and pesticides, so of course they're not going to use the tech to neuter their profits. If anything they are benefiting from the negative press and comments like your own as it discourage the public from supporting the necessary government research. I doubt this will come from private corporations as the profit motive just isn't there.
    - cmrdporcupine 8y ago
      RoundUp is a pesticide. Glyphosate. A herbicide. Maybe you mean "RoundUp Ready?" The actual real world of GMO, the stuff that is actually marketed and sold -- it's like 90% about herbicide resistance, nothing else.
adreamingsoul 8y ago
You don't replace it. Instead, we need to adjust our thinking when it comes to growing food.
- tptacek 8y ago
  So you mean, grow much less of it, and at greater cost? You know what else presents a risk of "reduced IQs, memory and attention deficits"? Malnutrition, the world's most potent inhibitor of intelligence.
  - romed 8y ago
    Essentially, yes. The "green revolution" is an illusion and its effects cannot be sustained. We need to gradually back down to a place where humans can grow enough food for themselves without also poisoning themselves and without exhausting soil fertility.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
    >So you mean, grow much less of it, and at greater cost? Yes. >You know what else presents a risk of "reduced IQs, memory and attention deficits"? Malnutrition Okay, so no matter what we're reducing IQ, memory and attention. So why not ban them?
  - jnurmine 8y ago
    Just a note, the world runs no risk of malnutrition even if we produce less food with cleaner forms of production. The world already produces more than enough for everyone. The problem is distribution, not production.
- detcader 8y ago
  Or, having children. Natalism -- the positive and negative values constructed around having vs. not having children, the pressure put upon women to reproduce until they biologically can't anymore in most (really all) countries -- as a social reality is almost never thought about, much less discussed as potentially 'adjustable'.
bluntfang 8y ago
sounds like an interesting way to create jobs, since alternatives probably won't produce as much yield, thus requiring more farms/farmers.

jbob2000 8y ago

Distributed farming. If you grow all your food in one area, guess where the insects are going to go...

pjc50 8y ago
Farming is distributed over large areas of land called "fields", or when you have a lot of these over an even bigger area, "Ohio".
black6 8y ago
The monoculture status quo certainly takes some of the blame. In a balanced ecosystem, no one pest can gain a foothold because the ecosystem supports natural predators, and the foodsource is spread out enough that the pest population won't reach a critical mass.

John_KZ 8y ago

They could be replaced, but the question becomes which one would be better (or worse). Additionally there are other ways to tackle this problem. Ensure usage is not allowed near residential areas, give warning or make sure everyone dusts only on particular dates. Lots of ways to solve this. Banning things that sound bad won't help. We'll end up banning everything. The concerns are valid, raising awareness is always good, but a solid plan is needed before we change the way we do agriculture.

chabes 8y ago

Organic farmers don’t use them

reacweb 8y ago
and forbid GMO (at least in France).
- romed 8y ago
  USDA Organic program also excludes GMOs.
dragontamer 8y ago
"Organic" Farmers aren't very well defined unfortunately. They do use pesticides, but "organic" ones. The overriding pattern is that "Organic" farmers use stuff that is all natural. (for some... fuzzy... definition of all natural) But we all know that Rattlesnake venom is 100% organic and all natural. So I'm personally not sure if the distinction between "synthetic" and "organic" is very appropriate. Nature can certainly mass-produce poisons that can be detrimental to humans. The Pesticide problem is rather simple: we want to spray a poison onto our plants that kills insects, but doesn't harm humans (or the plants). Whether you use an "organic" pesticide or "synthetic" one, the fact remains that you are consistently spraying poisons. And these poisons haven't been very well tested for long-term low-level exposure levels. Be it organic or synthetic.
- aethertap 8y ago
  Slightly tangential, but regarding the definition of "natural," I personally prefer to think in terms of concentrates. The chemicals in question exist in nature in many cases, or at least there is a similar naturally occurring compound. The main thing that I think makes a useful distinction is the concentration level. Like other drugs, the danger is in the dose, and the extreme levels of potency we can get with a little chemistry is what makes them "natural" or "synthetic" in my opinion (regardless of their actual origin). I'm more cautious accepting highly concentrated substances than I am accepting the same thing diluted with the thousands of other naturally occurring substances that accompany it "in the wild."
  - wahern 8y ago

dragontamer 8y ago

I mean, its sorta why GMOs exist. To reduce the need of pesticides that are sprayed on farms. I've always considered GMOs to be the lesser evil when compared to standard pesticide usage. Not all produce have a insect-resistant type however. So pesticides are still needed to protect certain plants.

tomp 8y ago
How does it work in practice though? Monsanto's RoundUp hasn't been getting rave reviews lately ...
- tynpeddler 8y ago
  That's a pr problem, not a science problem. But you bring up a good point, even if you come up with the perfect technical solution, if people are suspicious, or there are bad actors out there with pseudoscience products to sell, you can get dumpstered for no good reason. The fact that we're struggling to maintain herd immunity in certain population segments tells you how hard it can be to defend good solutions in the face of irrational paranoia.
- slacka 8y ago
  Why are you conflating RoundUp (NOT even a pesticide) with all GMOs? Attacking GMO technology because of one company's misuse is like attacking electricity because of the electric chair. We're talking about replacing pesticides. Monsanto is in the business of selling herbicides and pesticides, so of course they're not going to use the tech to neuter their profits. If anything they are benefiting from the negative press and comments like your own as it discourage the public from supporting the necessary government research. I doubt this will come from private corporations as the profit motive just isn't there.
  - cmrdporcupine 8y ago
    RoundUp is a pesticide. Glyphosate. A herbicide. Maybe you mean "RoundUp Ready?" The actual real world of GMO, the stuff that is actually marketed and sold -- it's like 90% about herbicide resistance, nothing else.

adreamingsoul 8y ago

You don't replace it. Instead, we need to adjust our thinking when it comes to growing food.

tptacek 8y ago
So you mean, grow much less of it, and at greater cost? You know what else presents a risk of "reduced IQs, memory and attention deficits"? Malnutrition, the world's most potent inhibitor of intelligence.
- romed 8y ago
  Essentially, yes. The "green revolution" is an illusion and its effects cannot be sustained. We need to gradually back down to a place where humans can grow enough food for themselves without also poisoning themselves and without exhausting soil fertility.
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  >So you mean, grow much less of it, and at greater cost? Yes. >You know what else presents a risk of "reduced IQs, memory and attention deficits"? Malnutrition Okay, so no matter what we're reducing IQ, memory and attention. So why not ban them?
- jnurmine 8y ago
  Just a note, the world runs no risk of malnutrition even if we produce less food with cleaner forms of production. The world already produces more than enough for everyone. The problem is distribution, not production.
detcader 8y ago
Or, having children. Natalism -- the positive and negative values constructed around having vs. not having children, the pressure put upon women to reproduce until they biologically can't anymore in most (really all) countries -- as a social reality is almost never thought about, much less discussed as potentially 'adjustable'.

bluntfang 8y ago

sounds like an interesting way to create jobs, since alternatives probably won't produce as much yield, thus requiring more farms/farmers.