3 ms·

Not to poop on her accomplishments, but isn't conventionally grown fruit sprayed with pesticides specifically to kill and deter pests like fruit flies?

tehwalrus 13y ago
She was working carefully with a fruit-fly lab, and it's been published by a real journal. I imagine that there would be a preparation step (the same for the organic fruit of course) to wash the fruit and so on to remove this kind of systematic error.
- arjn 13y ago
  Would washing them get rid of all the pesticides ? I doubt it. Wouldn't there be some absorption of pesticides into the fruit ?
  - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
    Assuming there is absorption, would you really want to eat the non-organic fruit?
    - arjn 13y ago
      No I wouldn't, but that's not the question being discussed in this thread.
      - gejjaxxita 13y ago
        I would. I only eat "non-organic" food, crop yields are much higher with artificial fertilizers and pesticides. I think it is extremely irresponsible not to do this given how much land is used for agriculture and how many people in the world do not have enough good food to eat.
        phryk 13y ago
        My thoughts exactly. But if there is no systematic or other error in her research and there are health-impacts for humans, too then we better get up to snuff and look for a solution to make our food healthier. Also even conventional farming is still somewhat inefficient. Vertical, largely automated farming could do much to lessen the footprint agriculture currently has on our landscapes and ecology.
        RobAley 13y ago
        Its a much more complicated issue than you allude to. More food is produced each year than the global population requires. The reason people still starve and are malnourished are complex, including issues such as transport & infrastructure problems, corruption, lack of storage, lack of hygiene education and so on. In the developing world, organic farming on many crops increases yields. In hot climates, plants pull their roots up to get the fertilisers and loose the benefits of deeper roots to get water. Reliance on artificial pesticides means that when economic conditions prevent them being bought, natural methods aren't in place (or have been forgotten) and pests run riot ruining crops. Organic methods manage the soil and improve natural fertility. Eating only non-organic foods here in the developed world won't help those elsewhere in the world that are hungry.
        gejjaxxita 13y ago
        Of course the reasons are complex, and clearly artificial fertilizers and pesticides are (just like any technology) not the solution to everything , but they play an extremely important part in maximizing food production and limiting environmental impact. In the west they play a vital role in maintaining our high standard of living. Organic farming is a waste of important resource (land). The point on economic conditions changing is not a valid one, you might make the same argument for investing in an a road network or electricity grid, saying that if economic conditions change and fuel is no longer affordable the economy will collapse. Regarding the point on roots rising to get nutrients from fertilizers in the topsoil - are you sure that's true? There are many negative effects of fertilizers but I don't think that's one of them.
        13y ago
  - jtheory 13y ago
    I understand that it depends on the fruit (I'd assume great absorption differences between strawberries and grapefruit, for example). But (speculatively... I haven't read the study methods eitehr) that still keeps it interesting. If she cleans/peels the fruit as you would for a person to eat it, ideally there shouldn't be enough pesticides still in it to affect the flies -- and potentially affect human health as well, though this would obviously require further study.
  - tehwalrus 13y ago
    I said "like" washing them - I don't know what the step entails.
- Ergomane 13y ago
  The materials and methods section should contain such steps. Washing and peeling was not indicated.
- aray 13y ago
  This article doesn't mention whether they tested or measured sequestration of compounds in the fruit, but my guess is that this has been carefully studied in the past, though possibly not w.r.t. fruit flies.
ScottWhigham 13y ago
I don't know what/where/how but there's a timeline in place for spraying the fruits. They need to be sprayed with chemical "a" at "b" days of age, and then perhaps with chemical "c" at "d" days after/before "e" event (flowering, budding, being pulled, etc). These would be timed in a such a way as to prevent specific insects or diseases that are interested in the plant at those times. For example, it might be that the pesticide for fruit flies isn't applied until after the fruit has developed. That being said, all pesticides have an "inert" date at which point the chemical is not doing anything. I'd be interested in learning whether that date is after the sell date. If not, then your post raises a really important question. If the pesticide's chemical(s) are inert before it is sold, then it puts it to bed, I think. I don't know enough about pesticides/organic to know where to even look for stuff like that though.

tehwalrus 13y ago

She was working carefully with a fruit-fly lab, and it's been published by a real journal. I imagine that there would be a preparation step (the same for the organic fruit of course) to wash the fruit and so on to remove this kind of systematic error.

arjn 13y ago
Would washing them get rid of all the pesticides ? I doubt it. Wouldn't there be some absorption of pesticides into the fruit ?
- aaronbrethorst 13y ago
  Assuming there is absorption, would you really want to eat the non-organic fruit?
  - arjn 13y ago
    No I wouldn't, but that's not the question being discussed in this thread.
    - gejjaxxita 13y ago
      I would. I only eat "non-organic" food, crop yields are much higher with artificial fertilizers and pesticides. I think it is extremely irresponsible not to do this given how much land is used for agriculture and how many people in the world do not have enough good food to eat.
      - phryk 13y ago
        My thoughts exactly. But if there is no systematic or other error in her research and there are health-impacts for humans, too then we better get up to snuff and look for a solution to make our food healthier. Also even conventional farming is still somewhat inefficient. Vertical, largely automated farming could do much to lessen the footprint agriculture currently has on our landscapes and ecology.
      - RobAley 13y ago
        Its a much more complicated issue than you allude to. More food is produced each year than the global population requires. The reason people still starve and are malnourished are complex, including issues such as transport & infrastructure problems, corruption, lack of storage, lack of hygiene education and so on. In the developing world, organic farming on many crops increases yields. In hot climates, plants pull their roots up to get the fertilisers and loose the benefits of deeper roots to get water. Reliance on artificial pesticides means that when economic conditions prevent them being bought, natural methods aren't in place (or have been forgotten) and pests run riot ruining crops. Organic methods manage the soil and improve natural fertility. Eating only non-organic foods here in the developed world won't help those elsewhere in the world that are hungry.
        gejjaxxita 13y ago
        Of course the reasons are complex, and clearly artificial fertilizers and pesticides are (just like any technology) not the solution to everything , but they play an extremely important part in maximizing food production and limiting environmental impact. In the west they play a vital role in maintaining our high standard of living. Organic farming is a waste of important resource (land). The point on economic conditions changing is not a valid one, you might make the same argument for investing in an a road network or electricity grid, saying that if economic conditions change and fuel is no longer affordable the economy will collapse. Regarding the point on roots rising to get nutrients from fertilizers in the topsoil - are you sure that's true? There are many negative effects of fertilizers but I don't think that's one of them.
        13y ago
- jtheory 13y ago
  I understand that it depends on the fruit (I'd assume great absorption differences between strawberries and grapefruit, for example). But (speculatively... I haven't read the study methods eitehr) that still keeps it interesting. If she cleans/peels the fruit as you would for a person to eat it, ideally there shouldn't be enough pesticides still in it to affect the flies -- and potentially affect human health as well, though this would obviously require further study.
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  I said "like" washing them - I don't know what the step entails.
Ergomane 13y ago
The materials and methods section should contain such steps. Washing and peeling was not indicated.
aray 13y ago
This article doesn't mention whether they tested or measured sequestration of compounds in the fruit, but my guess is that this has been carefully studied in the past, though possibly not w.r.t. fruit flies.

ScottWhigham 13y ago

I don't know what/where/how but there's a timeline in place for spraying the fruits. They need to be sprayed with chemical "a" at "b" days of age, and then perhaps with chemical "c" at "d" days after/before "e" event (flowering, budding, being pulled, etc). These would be timed in a such a way as to prevent specific insects or diseases that are interested in the plant at those times. For example, it might be that the pesticide for fruit flies isn't applied until after the fruit has developed. That being said, all pesticides have an "inert" date at which point the chemical is not doing anything. I'd be interested in learning whether that date is after the sell date. If not, then your post raises a really important question. If the pesticide's chemical(s) are inert before it is sold, then it puts it to bed, I think. I don't know enough about pesticides/organic to know where to even look for stuff like that though.