5 ms·

You might choose not to eat the non-organic food but you can't avoid the Atrazine [1] in the rain, which is enough to turn the male northern leopard frog tadpol

• maerF0x0 12y ago
  > The families of the people who work in the factory farm system are also affected. That is the exact reason I've often chosen organic for years. People used to say "Its no better for you" and I'd reply "Maybe, but its better for them, the workers"
  • keenerd 12y ago
    As someone who comes from a family of small farmers, this is not really true. Organic pesticides are on-average more harmful to the people who use them than modern pesticides. Simply put, organic pesticides attack animal/fungal life indiscriminately. Including human life. Most organic pesticides will kill you at fairly low quantities. Most man-made ones won't, they are tailored to a task. And organic farmers need to use a lot more pesticides than non-organic farmers to achieve the same results, making human toxicity even more likely.
    • ambler0 12y ago
      I've never heard of this. Do you have an actual source?
      • unclebucknasty 12y ago
        I'm interested in a source as well. I have heard the argument that organic pesticides must be used in higher quantities, but never that they are more toxic than synthetics. The latter statement seems nonsensical on its face. It's very difficult to believe that, given years of testing and research into both synthetic and organic pesticides, so many people are getting it so wrong as to conclude that organics are safer when they are exactly they opposite. In fact, non-organic farming proponents aren't even making this claim to my knowledge. At most, they seem to advocate that non-organics aren't less healthy than organics.
        • ambago 12y ago
          I think they are referring to the loophole that allows farms to use organic chemicals on produce that is labeled "Organic". In chemistry, an organic chemical is a compound that contains lots of carbon, or carbon chains. The loophole allows the use of these organic compounds as pesticides. The downside is that these are typically much more of a broad spectrum than the cutting edge pesticides. This means that unlike the new narrow-spectrum pesticides (which are often designed so they only affect the physiology of a specific order of invertebrate) the old-school organic chemical pesticides are harmful to pretty much everything it comes in contact with. Here is some more info on the issue: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18... And one last one that explains a bit more on organic chemicals: http://www.chemheritage.org/percy-julian/activities/2b.html http://www.chemheritage.org/percy-julian/activities/2b.html
      • keenerd 12y ago
        Only primary sources. Pick a few chemicals, find their LD50 from a MSDS, find their application rate. Run the numbers. An organic fungicide: copper sulfate pentahydrate (aka CuSO4) A non-organic fungicide: iprodione (aka Rovral) LD50 of CuSO4: 472 mg/kg (rat) [1] LD50 of Rovral: 2g/kg (rat) [2] So straight up, the organic is four times more lethal to mammals. But that is just the beginning, because you have to use a lot more of the organics! How much would Farmer Joe have to use on his small, 10 acre plot? Assuming the worst, lets look at the maximum seasonal application. rate of CuSO4: 16 pounds/acre per season [3] rate of Rovral: 12 pints/acre per season [4] Skipping the basic algebra, in one year Joe could apply enough organic fungicide (72.5kg) to kill 1700 people. One year of non-organic (1.3kg) would be enough to kill 7 people. (Assuming a spherical man of 90 kg.) [1] http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/coppersu.htm http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/coppersu.htm [2] http://www.cdms.net/ldat/mpAKR005.pdf http://www.cdms.net/ldat/mpAKR005.pdf [3] http://growabundant.com/copper/ http://growabundant.com/copper/ [4] http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldAKR006.pdf http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldAKR006.pdf edit: ambago, you are full of bunk. The USDA has very strict guidelines for labeling. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• ibisum 12y ago
  >You might choose not to eat the non-organic food but you can't avoid the Atrazine [1] in the rain That's a very US-centric point of view. It was banned in the EU for a reason.
  • SixSigma 12y ago
    The principle of least harm. But I was replying to someone who said they live in Central Arizona. Ironic that Atrazine is produced by a Swiss company and can't even use it in their own country.
    • ibisum 12y ago
      When was the last time Agent Orange was dropped on an American everglade? (Trick question..)
      • SixSigma 12y ago
        While I see what you're driving at, AO wasn't dropped on Everglades and then banned.
        • ibisum 12y ago
          The point is this: America cares less about the harmful effects of big-corp-produced substances than Europe does.
          • hueving 12y ago
            No, we just don't have the privilege of enjoying luxury goods like organic food for every person.