5 ms·

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 mo

by 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
  - ewoodrich 12y ago
    LD50 (acute toxicity) does not necessarily correlate with harmful health effects from chronic exposure. Can you cite studies that demonstrate harms from exposure at the levels used in organic farming?
    - keenerd 12y ago
      We are talking about risks to people working in the fields. Every time a farmer applies anything to a field, he will have to put on safety gear, measure out an amount, mix it with water, load it into the sprayer, drive the tractor around, and then clean up afterwards. When you are working with enough of a chemical to kill a hundred people, every single one of these steps carries the risk of an acute exposure. Dead is dead, regardless of how it happens. Don't dismiss it. edit: From source [1]: > Chronic toxicity: Vineyard sprayers experienced liver disease after 3 to 15 years of exposure to copper sulfate solution in Bordeaux mixture [8]. Long term effects are more likely in individuals with Wilson's disease, a condition which causes excessive absorption and storage of copper [25]. Chronic exposure to low levels of copper can lead to anemia [8] So yeah, its still bad for you.

by keenerd 12y ago

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
- ewoodrich 12y ago
  LD50 (acute toxicity) does not necessarily correlate with harmful health effects from chronic exposure. Can you cite studies that demonstrate harms from exposure at the levels used in organic farming?
  - keenerd 12y ago
    We are talking about risks to people working in the fields. Every time a farmer applies anything to a field, he will have to put on safety gear, measure out an amount, mix it with water, load it into the sprayer, drive the tractor around, and then clean up afterwards. When you are working with enough of a chemical to kill a hundred people, every single one of these steps carries the risk of an acute exposure. Dead is dead, regardless of how it happens. Don't dismiss it. edit: From source [1]: > Chronic toxicity: Vineyard sprayers experienced liver disease after 3 to 15 years of exposure to copper sulfate solution in Bordeaux mixture [8]. Long term effects are more likely in individuals with Wilson's disease, a condition which causes excessive absorption and storage of copper [25]. Chronic exposure to low levels of copper can lead to anemia [8] So yeah, its still bad for you.