Food & Drink5 mins ago
Highly Toxic Pesticides Widely Used In Organic Farming
Several pesticides approved for used with organically certified crops are far more toxic than synthetic pesticides. Their use is widespread in the organic farming industry.
Meanwhile the organic industry vilifies synthetic pesticides that are less toxic than coffee.
What is going on?
https:/
Meanwhile the organic industry vilifies synthetic pesticides that are less toxic than coffee.
What is going on?
https:/
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by beso. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
From the article:
"In a UK poll, 95% of the consumers bought organic food because they wanted to avoid consuming pesticides. This belief could not be further from the truth. The US organic industry has approved over 3000 toxic pesticides for use in organic farming, many of which are neurotoxins or with a toxic profile requiring “Danger” labels."
"In a UK poll, 95% of the consumers bought organic food because they wanted to avoid consuming pesticides. This belief could not be further from the truth. The US organic industry has approved over 3000 toxic pesticides for use in organic farming, many of which are neurotoxins or with a toxic profile requiring “Danger” labels."
I doubt that. For a non-organic commercial concerns it is cheaper to drench everything in powerful pesticides since they have only final product toxicity to be concerned about.
Organic commercial concerns have no incentive to take on the extra expense of growing organic crops and then deliberately act against the ethos of organic belief. That which is used is going to be that which proved needed.
Plus, what is approved for use isn't the same as that which is commonly used. It's possible the "stronger" stuff indicates the limit one can go to when usual practice hasn't got rid of a pest.
Organic commercial concerns have no incentive to take on the extra expense of growing organic crops and then deliberately act against the ethos of organic belief. That which is used is going to be that which proved needed.
Plus, what is approved for use isn't the same as that which is commonly used. It's possible the "stronger" stuff indicates the limit one can go to when usual practice hasn't got rid of a pest.
"In a UK poll, 95% of the consumers bought organic food because they wanted to avoid consuming pesticides."
Fair enough. As long as one appreciates it's about minimising rather than guaranteeing no pesticides are used. The end produce should be as low as possible in pesticides, ideally none, although I do not know what the rules are.
"This belief could not be further from the truth. The US organic industry has approved over 3000 toxic pesticides for use in organic farming""
That is obvious nonsense. The aim is to avoid as much pesticide as possible not eliminate it's use completely. This claim that it isn't the truth is simple spin by someone with an axe to grind.
"Many of which are neurotoxins or with a toxic profile requiring “Danger” labels.""
I'd suggest checking out the Organic industry criteria and uncover why one product is approved and others not.
Fair enough. As long as one appreciates it's about minimising rather than guaranteeing no pesticides are used. The end produce should be as low as possible in pesticides, ideally none, although I do not know what the rules are.
"This belief could not be further from the truth. The US organic industry has approved over 3000 toxic pesticides for use in organic farming""
That is obvious nonsense. The aim is to avoid as much pesticide as possible not eliminate it's use completely. This claim that it isn't the truth is simple spin by someone with an axe to grind.
"Many of which are neurotoxins or with a toxic profile requiring “Danger” labels.""
I'd suggest checking out the Organic industry criteria and uncover why one product is approved and others not.
Old_Geezer // For a non-organic commercial concerns it is cheaper to drench everything in powerful pesticides since they have only final product toxicity to be concerned about. //
I can see by the way you repeat what you have been told, the organic industry rhetoric has been very effective on you. You even use the emotive words they promote such as "drenched".
You also have entirely overlooked the fact that several organically accepted pesticides are far more toxic than synthetic pesticides.
Fact is that pesticides are a production cost and any intelligent business minimises costs.
I can see by the way you repeat what you have been told, the organic industry rhetoric has been very effective on you. You even use the emotive words they promote such as "drenched".
You also have entirely overlooked the fact that several organically accepted pesticides are far more toxic than synthetic pesticides.
Fact is that pesticides are a production cost and any intelligent business minimises costs.
I don't repeat anything at all; I know the aim of the organic industry is to produce food as naturally and with as few chemicals as possible and the rest is simple common sense. But full marks for trying to belittle my posts by suggesting that I can only parrot things.
Drenched is descriptive not emotive, but it is interesting that you consider it the latter.
Pesticides are a cost but a smaller cost than combating pests via other methods which is why non-organic farming uses them to reduce their costs.
If the source is organic then it isn't likely to be an issue to the food's status. As for whether it is the best thing to use would depend on deep detailed studies and may be irrelevant if the end result is food still at reasonable low levels of chemicals remaining.
Why do you take such an interest in this claim of misdeeds by the organic industry ?
Drenched is descriptive not emotive, but it is interesting that you consider it the latter.
Pesticides are a cost but a smaller cost than combating pests via other methods which is why non-organic farming uses them to reduce their costs.
If the source is organic then it isn't likely to be an issue to the food's status. As for whether it is the best thing to use would depend on deep detailed studies and may be irrelevant if the end result is food still at reasonable low levels of chemicals remaining.
Why do you take such an interest in this claim of misdeeds by the organic industry ?
1 to 8 of 8
Latest Posts
Will Stonehenge Become Reform's...
News6 mins ago
Technology7 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.