5 ms·

This is what bothers me about organic farming: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbustin

This is what bothers me about organic farming: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogs... > What makes organic farming different, then? It's not the use of pesticides, it's the origin of the pesticides used. Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all before use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are generally synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain plants, for example) are somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been created by man. As more research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn't true, either. Many natural pesticides have been found to be potential - or serious - health risks.2 > Not only are organic pesticides not safe, they might actually be worse than the ones used by the conventional agriculture industry. Canadian scientists pitted 'reduced-risk' organic and synthetic pesticides against each other in controlling a problematic pest, the soybean aphid. They found that not only were the synthetic pesticides more effective means of control, the organic pesticides were more ecologically damaging, including causing higher mortality in other, non-target species like the aphid's predators This means organic farms cannot use a modern pesticide even when that pesticide is known to be safer, more efficient or more sustainable, purely on the grounds that it isn't a "natural" pesticide. That's pseudoscience. Sustainable farming should be based on science and facts. Instead, farmers are following arbitrary organic farming rules so they can label their produce as "organic" and charge more. I want a system where the most sustainable farming approaches are encouraged (e.g. via taxes, better labelling) instead of being held back by the "organic" label.

fact_factory 7y ago
>What makes organic farming different, then? It's not the use of pesticides, it's the origin of the pesticides used. This is not exactly truthful, at least in the United States. Organic farmers are required to manage competitor organisms with non-chemical methods as a matter of practice. They are only permitted to use approved organic pesticides when the other means are insufficient, and it has to be documented. If an ostensibly organic farm relies on chemical management routinely, that violates the letter and the spirit of the organic program regulations and should cause certification to be withdrawn. >b) Pest problems may be controlled through mechanical or physical methods including but not limited to: (1) Augmentation or introduction of predators or parasites of the pest species; (2) Development of habitat for natural enemies of pests; (3) Nonsynthetic controls such as lures, traps, and repellents. (c) Weed problems may be controlled through: (1) Mulching with fully biodegradable materials; (2) Mowing; (3) Livestock grazing; (4) Hand weeding and mechanical cultivation; (5) Flame, heat, or electrical means; or (6) Plastic or other synthetic mulches: Provided, That, they are removed from the field at the end of the growing or harvest season. (d) Disease problems may be controlled through: (1) Management practices which suppress the spread of disease organisms; or (2) Application of nonsynthetic biological, botanical, or mineral inputs. (e) When the practices provided for in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section are insufficient to prevent or control crop pests, weeds, and diseases, a biological or botanical substance or a substance included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production may be applied to prevent, suppress, or control pests, weeds, or diseases: Provided, That, the conditions for using the substance are documented in the organic system plan. (f) The producer must not use lumber treated with arsenate or other prohibited materials for new installations or replacement purposes in contact with soil or livestock. Tl;dr, you’re only permitted to use pesticides in organic farming when nothing else works to control the organisms, and you have to stop using them as soon as the organisms are controlled. Organic farmers are not permitted to routinely spray their fields. [0] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=94361624bc8858349d7eae45799f2375&mc=true&node=se7.3.205_1206&rgn=div8 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=94361624bc8858349d...
- seanwilson 7y ago
  > Organic farmers are required to manage competitor organisms with non-chemical methods as a matter of practice. They are only permitted to use approved organic pesticides when the other means are insufficient, and it has to be documented. And if the non-chemical methods + modern pesticides works out to be safer and more sustainable than the non-chemical methods + organic approved pesticides? Then you can't call it organic. That's not a science based approach. If people really care about the environment, they should be advocating the best farming approaches we can find, not one that's based around the naturalistic fallacy that plays into fear the public have about "non-natural" products.
  - fact_factory 7y ago
    It’s driven more by a holistic understanding of the ecosystem as a whole than by any sort of naturalistic fallacy, at least on the producer side. Modern pesticides are creating resistant weeds, such that now farmers who rely on chemistry to control the competitor organisms are finding weeds that are resistant to glyphosate and gluphosinate in their fields.
    - seanwilson 7y ago
      > It’s driven more by a holistic understanding of the ecosystem as a whole than by any sort of naturalistic fallacy, at least on the producer side. How is only allowing "natural" pesticides not appealing to the naturalistic fallacy? If you really care about improving ecosystems, you should be using the best knowledge and techniques available. > Modern pesticides are creating resistant weeds, such that now farmers who rely on chemistry to control the competitor organisms are finding weeds that are resistant to glyphosate and gluphosinate in their fields. You'd be overgeneralising to say every modern pesticide had this problem though.
      - fact_factory 7y ago
        >How is only allowing "natural" pesticides not appealing to the naturalistic fallacy? If you really care about improving ecosystems, you should be using the best knowledge and techniques available. Because “what is best” is not always obvious, especially when something is relatively new. Pesticides in general are prohibited, and if the conditions for an exception are met, then the criteria for selecting a pesticide are that it based on precaution. It’s not that “natural stuff is ok and synthetics are not” otherwise the organic program would permit natural substances such as rotenone that have been shown to be harmful. The perspective is that synthetic substances are also subject to the precautionary principle, and should be studied to determine the safety and efficacy before they are permitted. Much of what we call “organic” is just “the way things were routinely done before the invention of selective herbicides” and when credible concerns about those substances and practices were raised, the rules were changed to reflect that understanding. >You'd be overgeneralising to say every modern pesticide had this problem though. Agriculture is a broad field (!) and one can usually find exceptions somewhere to blanket statements. Is there a reason why some selective herbicides wouldn’t create selective pressure and thereby select for weeds that are resistant to that substance? I think that’s how evolution works and that’s the basic mechanism here. You haven’t seen resistance for the newer substances simply because there hasn’t been enough time for resistance to develop. Why is this not a problem for pesticides used in organic farming? Probably because pesticides used in organic farming are not selective which means they will damage/kill your crops as readily as they will competitor organisms. Modern herbicides are selective, which means they kill the weeds and leave your crops alone, because the crops have resistant traits. These resistant traits are the ones that evolve in the weeds.
AmericanChopper 7y ago
All “organic” farming has achieved is taking word that had a particular meaning, and removed any trace of that meaning. What does “organic” mean? Well it certainly no longer means organic. It also doesn’t refer to a set of more “natural” farming principles. Depending on who you ask, each certifying body will have their own unique definition that amounts to hundreds of pages of regulations. “Organic” is equally as meaningless and nonsensical as “chemical free”.
- fact_factory 7y ago
  >Depending on who you ask, each certifying body will have their own unique definition that amounts to hundreds of pages of regulations. “Organic” is equally as meaningless and nonsensical as “chemical free”. That’s not accurate in the United States. All the organic certifying bodies are required to apply the same rules. >§205.501 General requirements for accreditation. (a) A private or governmental entity accredited as a certifying agent under this subpart must: (1) Have sufficient expertise in organic production or handling techniques to fully comply with and implement the terms and conditions of the organic certification program established under the Act and the regulations in this part; (2) Demonstrate the ability to fully comply with the requirements for accreditation set forth in this subpart; (3) Carry out the provisions of the Act and the regulations in this part, including the provisions of §§205.402 through 205.406 and §205.670; [0]https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d2567878d0b94a88ef69dbb5d11f493d&mc=true&node=se7.3.205_1501&rgn=div8 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d2567878d0b94a88ef...
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    I’m not sure what you think you’ve proven here. The USDA has its own unique, long winded definition, so does the EU, and so do many other countries, and private organisations. In this context the world has no relation at all to its original meaning, it cannot possibly be concisely defined, as the only way to define it is with an exhaustive set of rules and regulations, and has no consistent meaning, because you can only talk about it in the context of the rules and regulations defined by one of many organisations at a time.

fact_factory 7y ago

>What makes organic farming different, then? It's not the use of pesticides, it's the origin of the pesticides used. This is not exactly truthful, at least in the United States. Organic farmers are required to manage competitor organisms with non-chemical methods as a matter of practice. They are only permitted to use approved organic pesticides when the other means are insufficient, and it has to be documented. If an ostensibly organic farm relies on chemical management routinely, that violates the letter and the spirit of the organic program regulations and should cause certification to be withdrawn. >b) Pest problems may be controlled through mechanical or physical methods including but not limited to: (1) Augmentation or introduction of predators or parasites of the pest species; (2) Development of habitat for natural enemies of pests; (3) Nonsynthetic controls such as lures, traps, and repellents. (c) Weed problems may be controlled through: (1) Mulching with fully biodegradable materials; (2) Mowing; (3) Livestock grazing; (4) Hand weeding and mechanical cultivation; (5) Flame, heat, or electrical means; or (6) Plastic or other synthetic mulches: Provided, That, they are removed from the field at the end of the growing or harvest season. (d) Disease problems may be controlled through: (1) Management practices which suppress the spread of disease organisms; or (2) Application of nonsynthetic biological, botanical, or mineral inputs. (e) When the practices provided for in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section are insufficient to prevent or control crop pests, weeds, and diseases, a biological or botanical substance or a substance included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production may be applied to prevent, suppress, or control pests, weeds, or diseases: Provided, That, the conditions for using the substance are documented in the organic system plan. (f) The producer must not use lumber treated with arsenate or other prohibited materials for new installations or replacement purposes in contact with soil or livestock. Tl;dr, you’re only permitted to use pesticides in organic farming when nothing else works to control the organisms, and you have to stop using them as soon as the organisms are controlled. Organic farmers are not permitted to routinely spray their fields. [0] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=94361624bc8858349d7eae45799f2375&mc=true&node=se7.3.205_1206&rgn=div8 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=94361624bc8858349d...

seanwilson 7y ago
> Organic farmers are required to manage competitor organisms with non-chemical methods as a matter of practice. They are only permitted to use approved organic pesticides when the other means are insufficient, and it has to be documented. And if the non-chemical methods + modern pesticides works out to be safer and more sustainable than the non-chemical methods + organic approved pesticides? Then you can't call it organic. That's not a science based approach. If people really care about the environment, they should be advocating the best farming approaches we can find, not one that's based around the naturalistic fallacy that plays into fear the public have about "non-natural" products.
- fact_factory 7y ago
  It’s driven more by a holistic understanding of the ecosystem as a whole than by any sort of naturalistic fallacy, at least on the producer side. Modern pesticides are creating resistant weeds, such that now farmers who rely on chemistry to control the competitor organisms are finding weeds that are resistant to glyphosate and gluphosinate in their fields.
  - seanwilson 7y ago
    > It’s driven more by a holistic understanding of the ecosystem as a whole than by any sort of naturalistic fallacy, at least on the producer side. How is only allowing "natural" pesticides not appealing to the naturalistic fallacy? If you really care about improving ecosystems, you should be using the best knowledge and techniques available. > Modern pesticides are creating resistant weeds, such that now farmers who rely on chemistry to control the competitor organisms are finding weeds that are resistant to glyphosate and gluphosinate in their fields. You'd be overgeneralising to say every modern pesticide had this problem though.
    - fact_factory 7y ago
      >How is only allowing "natural" pesticides not appealing to the naturalistic fallacy? If you really care about improving ecosystems, you should be using the best knowledge and techniques available. Because “what is best” is not always obvious, especially when something is relatively new. Pesticides in general are prohibited, and if the conditions for an exception are met, then the criteria for selecting a pesticide are that it based on precaution. It’s not that “natural stuff is ok and synthetics are not” otherwise the organic program would permit natural substances such as rotenone that have been shown to be harmful. The perspective is that synthetic substances are also subject to the precautionary principle, and should be studied to determine the safety and efficacy before they are permitted. Much of what we call “organic” is just “the way things were routinely done before the invention of selective herbicides” and when credible concerns about those substances and practices were raised, the rules were changed to reflect that understanding. >You'd be overgeneralising to say every modern pesticide had this problem though. Agriculture is a broad field (!) and one can usually find exceptions somewhere to blanket statements. Is there a reason why some selective herbicides wouldn’t create selective pressure and thereby select for weeds that are resistant to that substance? I think that’s how evolution works and that’s the basic mechanism here. You haven’t seen resistance for the newer substances simply because there hasn’t been enough time for resistance to develop. Why is this not a problem for pesticides used in organic farming? Probably because pesticides used in organic farming are not selective which means they will damage/kill your crops as readily as they will competitor organisms. Modern herbicides are selective, which means they kill the weeds and leave your crops alone, because the crops have resistant traits. These resistant traits are the ones that evolve in the weeds.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

All “organic” farming has achieved is taking word that had a particular meaning, and removed any trace of that meaning. What does “organic” mean? Well it certainly no longer means organic. It also doesn’t refer to a set of more “natural” farming principles. Depending on who you ask, each certifying body will have their own unique definition that amounts to hundreds of pages of regulations. “Organic” is equally as meaningless and nonsensical as “chemical free”.

fact_factory 7y ago
>Depending on who you ask, each certifying body will have their own unique definition that amounts to hundreds of pages of regulations. “Organic” is equally as meaningless and nonsensical as “chemical free”. That’s not accurate in the United States. All the organic certifying bodies are required to apply the same rules. >§205.501 General requirements for accreditation. (a) A private or governmental entity accredited as a certifying agent under this subpart must: (1) Have sufficient expertise in organic production or handling techniques to fully comply with and implement the terms and conditions of the organic certification program established under the Act and the regulations in this part; (2) Demonstrate the ability to fully comply with the requirements for accreditation set forth in this subpart; (3) Carry out the provisions of the Act and the regulations in this part, including the provisions of §§205.402 through 205.406 and §205.670; [0]https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d2567878d0b94a88ef69dbb5d11f493d&mc=true&node=se7.3.205_1501&rgn=div8 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d2567878d0b94a88ef...
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  I’m not sure what you think you’ve proven here. The USDA has its own unique, long winded definition, so does the EU, and so do many other countries, and private organisations. In this context the world has no relation at all to its original meaning, it cannot possibly be concisely defined, as the only way to define it is with an exhaustive set of rules and regulations, and has no consistent meaning, because you can only talk about it in the context of the rules and regulations defined by one of many organisations at a time.