The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed out

Organize and arrange your garden and vegetable garden: ornamental, landscape, wild garden, materials, fruits and vegetables, vegetable garden, natural fertilizers, shelters, pools or natural swimming pool. lifetime plants and crops in your garden.
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed out




by izentrop » 02/02/18, 00:39

Organic farmers can only use certain categories of pesticides derived from natural sources and without in-depth treatment, while in conventional farming synthetic substances are allowed.

This rule stems from the belief that natural derivatives have less impact on the environment, and leave fewer residues in food. But many substances extracted from natural sources, such as copper, ammonia, arsenic or plutonium, would be extremely toxic.

However, some research suggests that copper derivatives accumulate in soils and are the most commonly found residues in organic food. https://www.euractiv.fr/section/agricul ... certainty/


In the series : When organic carrots contain more pesticides than those called "classic"
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by Janic » 02/02/18, 11:04

Always the same speech that runs in a loop! However, the article is partly correct but seems to ignore the history (it is not the only one for that matter!) Which led to the development of this type of agriculture.
This comes from an awareness (still need to be conscious of course!) That this industrial agriculture, which is booming, is dangerous for the farmer, the products used, as well as for the life of the soil. in fact also the costs and that therefore, eventually, this system goes in the wall!
The peasant world has always been based on common sense because it is based on concrete realities, that of the earthly, that the hand and the eye of the peasant could know without going through sophisticated labs.
But the human being, faced with the promises of an enchanting future, exploding yields, (and the repercussions of the modest income of farmers) is not a superman who can resist the siren song of the industry.
These are the generations of young dynamic executives (out of agronomic universities) who managed to persuade these farmers, attached to their cultural traditions, to change methods. Unfortunately, they did not foresee that this would provoke an explosion of parasitisms, cryptogamic diseases, more and more expensive treatments, more and more expensive agricultural equipment, ever more important buildings, etc ... and therefore of debts and fall of these enchanting revenues.
So AB is this awareness! But the machine was launched, huge financial interests at stake and farmers, herders, trapped in the system and whose survival depended on it (suicide being only an extreme solution, unfortunately more and more frequent But the idea of ​​a less polluting agriculture, less destructive of the living, is and remains in the depths of the soul inherited from the culture of the ancestors who did not need all these inputs and chemicals dangerous for them. even their families and the people, future consumers of their production.
Thus is born the AB and the farmers who remain confronted with the reality of the polluted ground, more or less sterilized by the system in place and who must do with this reality (the nature is fast to destroy, but slow to rebuild) and the transition between the two modes is not done without difficulties and therefore of production, in spite of everything, on which depends the subsistence of the peasant himself his family, the repayment of debts, etc ... *
This explains why some toxic products, with high persistence, have continued to be used (and still are) for understandable reasons of survival of farms and especially those in conversion. This has also given rise to controversies between the ABs, some of whom opposed the products in question and those who wanted to change without endangering their future harvests.
Both have their reasons understandable according to the contexts obviously.
So yes ! it may seem philosophically abnormal, but the human reality also has its reasons.
Finally, and this is important, and even more so now, is that AB conversions are also related to the difficulties faced by debt-ridden and poverty-stricken farmers who see this AB as a way out of a situation of poverty. more and more difficult and hope for new financial resources " since AB is more expensive ". but between financial interest and reality on the ground, without a philosophical approach that led to this AB, the almost inevitable risk (and it is more and more the case) is the decline of the requirements necessary to produce healthy, really healthy, and therefore without pesticides and company and in fact without copper for example.
But the official recognition of the AB (after having denigrated, fought for decades) led to propose fewer quality requirements to open this formula to more farmer put off by the "fanaticism" supposed pioneers AB. And these requirements are even lower in other countries that have AB that claim to be and that invade the supermarkets increasingly demanding (by their customers and the media) of these products.
So yes, today it has become big anything, which aims to discredit the AB and its aficionados because the agronomic industry (despite the appearances of it too) sees a bad eye the loss of its productions and related benefits as any industrialist. Indeed SI tomorrow all agriculture was becoming AB in a serious way, without cheating, it would be the end of this industry and all these jobs to the key, which could and can not be done over a sufficiently long period (even if that makes more than half a century that this is ongoing).
In the series: When organic carrots contain more pesticides than those called "classic"
in the series, I only tell nonsense it's also a classic! It is not LES but DES, which makes a fundamental difference. But "when you want to slaughter his dog they say he has rabies"and you obviously did not read the article to the end! it is only an announcement effect like many others, but so is life! :?
1 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by izentrop » 03/02/18, 20:46

Janic wrote:this industrial agriculture, which is in full expansion, is dangerous for the farmer, for the products used ...
False idea
agricultural populations exposed during their working life have significantly fewer cancers (- 30%) and diseases than the rest of the population. see "Agrican" http://www.lafranceagricole.fr/actualit ... 82545.html
Janic wrote: the human being faced with promises of enchanting tomorrows, exploding yields, (and the repercussions of the modest income of farmers)
Another misconception, yields have increased well since the 50 years, but prices have steadily declined in favor of the consumer, the ratio between cultivated area and number of farmers has steadily increased and the a farmer who has not been able to adapt is in difficulty, to such an extent that it is less and less accessible to younger generations.
Janic wrote: for the life of the soil which is also the expense and that therefore, eventually, this system goes into the wall
Another preconceived idea. Get information at the right place instead of repeating "aneries", a word you've been sticking to me for some time.

I did not read further, you spread too much blah blah from the "scratching" press, completely out of reality. : Wink:
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by Janic » 04/02/18, 10:30

janic wrote: this industrial agriculture, which is booming, is dangerous for the farmer, the products used ...
False idea
agricultural populations exposed during their working life have significantly fewer cancers (- 30%) and diseases than the rest of the population. see "Agrican" http://www.lafranceagricole.fr/actualit ... 82545.html
This site is reserved for subscribers, so no comments.
However, one must not confuse the direct danger of a product with its indirect and long-term effects, as a reminder of DDT, which probably did not produce more cancers than elsewhere but other pathologies that have become specific to this type of cancer. poison like some malformations. So true idea and verified by a sufficiently long time in history.
janic wrote: the human being faced with promises of an enchanting tomorrow, exploding yields, (and by implication the modest income of farmers)
Another misconception, yields have increased well since the 50 years, but prices have steadily declined in favor of the consumer, the ratio between cultivated area and number of farmers has steadily increased and the a farmer who has not been able to adapt is in difficulty, to such an extent that it is less and less accessible to younger generations.
You only confirm what I summarized for reasons of unnecessary length. Part of the farmers have been trapped by these attractive promises they pay dearly now or rather their children.
janic wrote: for the life of the soil which is also the costs and that therefore, eventually, this system goes in the wall

Another preconceived idea. Get information at the right place instead of repeating "aneries", a word you've been sticking to me for some time.
Saying nonsense is unfortunately our human lot and we are all obviously concerned. So what is nonsense is pretty well defined here:
1. Great ignorance of what we should know.
 [...]; the confidence that men of the eighteenth century had in the industrial capacities of the state seems puerile to all those who have studied production elsewhere than in the tasteless books of sociologists; these still very carefully preserve the cult of the stupidities of the past; [...]. - (Georges Sorel, Reflections on violence, Chap.III, Prejudice against violence, 1908, p.141)
2. Fault committed by the effect of this ignorance.


I did it, (inquire!) Probably since much longer than you, and it's going to be about 50 years already.
You still seem too young to remember the heated debates that took place between the supporters of the AB and the agrochemicals, with all the campaigns of official denigration on the AB (sponsored by the lobbies of agrochemistry ). Things have changed and all at once the villain has become the kind and agricultural high schools have started to teach a reasoned agriculture (which preserves the industry by reducing only the chemical inputs) and a so-called organic agriculture (when the teachers have a real skill only)
Bourguignon demonstrates the loss of life of living organisms from the soil to "sterilize" it. It's just a matter of choosing a door to open!

http://lagricultureetautreschosesdelavie.fr/?p=151

this blogger, who is not pro Bourguignon, recognizes that soils have seen this organic life dwindle (which Did 67 is promoting "free") to see it almost disappear
I did not read further, you spread too much blah blah from the "scratchy" press, completely out of reality
you say a little more nonsense then talking about hair press to scratch without quoting! Personally I read to the end what you write, because a partial view can not give a consistent opinion.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by Did67 » 04/02/18, 11:00

Indeed, always the same thing: for vs against!

Natural products can be toxic. And harmless synthetic products. Overall: for the consumer, for the ecosystem ...

Beyond copper, there was, before, rotenones (related to the development of Parkinson's disease and banned since).

You have to be in bad faith not to admit it.

"Being against" would justify everything then? Including the use of "rather harmful" products (nothing is ever neither all white nor all black).

For my part, I chose.

And stay at this stealthy passage here. This debate has not interested me for a long time. He turns round.
1 x
User avatar
phil12
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 530
Registration: 05/10/09, 13:58
Location: Occitania
x 156

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by phil12 » 04/02/18, 11:06

Bonjour,

I was organic producer during 15ans, I still have my organic vegetable garden.

I have not read the whole thread but with the usual blah blah >> there are shenanigans in organic, Bordeaux mixture (which I have never used) ...

I answer yes there is Bio sometimes 90% sometimes 70% it is difficult to know, by cons what is sure is that 100% of conventional products come with pesticides, scrapers, fungicides, weed killers, petroleum-based inputs etc ...

And as Didier I do not want to militate or fight against the mills, I have 60 years and I do two dafalgants a year my wife same thing is enough for me as proof, all our friends in the same installment of age have a slew of drugs to take (not counting those who have already left us after cancer, among others a friend and two sisters of our age).
1 x
Sustainable energy consulting for construction
http://www.philippeservices.net/
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79118
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by Christophe » 04/02/18, 11:45

phil12 wrote:And as Didier I do not want to militate or fight against the mills, I have 60 years and I do two dafalgants a year my wife same thing is enough for me as proof, all our friends in the same installment of age have a slew of drugs to take (not counting those who have already left us after cancer, among others a friend and two sisters of our age).


I think everything is well summarized via this example! Conventional agriculture could be accused of crime against humanity! A film dedicated to it there 10 years now: Agriculture / our grandchildren accuse us-it film-t5729.html

They are only powerful because we are on our knees (or weak, or sick ... to adapt to the context ...) ... this is the "sad" history of humanity ... it is simply adapted in today's world, in a more pernicious way!

La Belle Verte tried a few years ago to warn people: Company-and-philosophy / the-beautiful-green-to-hill-serreau-a-movie-a-view-t4807.html

Regarding longevity, see also: Health-pollution-prevention / the-mystery-of-old-how live-plus-old t10885.html
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by Did67 » 04/02/18, 11:50

So anyway, one more word: the debates will be more factual when one will distinguish [edit: suite at phil12; Christophe has posted meanwhile]:

a) the "militant bio" (which is often "more than organic" - we do not use all the possibilities of the "organic" specifications; eg, we discipline ourselves on Cu, like you do, like I do; I put under the sobriquet "more than organic"; we do not plow, out of respect for the life of the soil - where organic can plow / mill more than conventional; or even use thermal soil treatments; among winegrowers, they are those who make "natural wines" without sulphites).

b) "intensive organic" (often commercial, but some "organic family gardens", through ignorance, are also to be stored there: on the shelves, inputs "authorized in organic" have replaced synthetic products); it is infinitely better than the conventional - I almost always specify it, when I do not forget; but it is "marred" by technical errors, either because we do not have alternatives "respectful of nature" (therefore more than simply natural), or by ignorance (we do not know or we do not want not knowing the impact of certain natural products - copper, broad spectrum insecticides, ... - or of certain acts (plowing / milling / heat treatment), or by simple dogma (the unconscious objective is not to respect a living system - we are content to be against the conventional). There, we use all the possibilities of the specifications: 3 kg / year of Cu (which remains in the soil - 3 kh / ha / year once, that is is nothing ... after 30 years, that's a lot!)

It is b) which fills the "organic" shelves of supermarkets (it is the only department in development and with high margins - the "organic" allows to believe that a double price is justified then we go there!) Or specialty stores.

Fraud is something else. We can not judge a fraud system.

On the other hand, judging it on its specifications (which sets what is authorized) is essential. And there, it is necessary to have the intellectual honesty to recognize that an "error" is an "error". And not justify it ...

I therefore maintain. The "organic" (that is to say the labeled "organic" according to specifications) has objective "defects", inherent in the founding dogma: we are against synthetic, so we only use natural. Even when naturalness is dangerous or has major drawbacks.

If we had "invented" organic from a blank sheet of paper, we would surely have made Excels tables, listing criteria: toxicity, LD50, specificity of the action, durability in nature, durability of the exploitation of the resource, impact on biodiversity ... ETc ... We would have used +, + +, -, -, etc ... Certain natural products (Cu for example, certain natural insecticides, certain fertilizers natural), would have had too many - and would have been retoched. I'm convinced. And probably, one or the other synthetic molecule retained! [For example, I used natural seaweed extracts as "reinforcers"; not authorized in "organic" because "extracted" by a process which modifies the algae; there we are in the middle of "Pentecostalism of the last hour"!]
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by izentrop » 07/02/18, 10:35

What is also forgotten is that organic phytos products do not always fight against mycotoxins.

For example, this documentary on these farmers in distress who no longer live on the sale of milk, collapse under debts and change jobs for some. https://www.france.tv/france-5/le-monde ... olere.html

Some go organic hoping to get out, but do not receive the promised premiums.
And worse, the case of one who loses his cows for no known reason.

Result of the analysis: high mycotoxin levels due to the fact that it no longer used pesticides.
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by izentrop » 07/02/18, 11:38

izentrop wrote:Result of the analysis: high mycotoxin levels due to the fact that it no longer used pesticides.
That's what the farmer says.
In fact it is not so obvious that a phyto treatment is effective against the presence of DONin corn, which has become the favored food of dairy cows.

A point here in conservation agriculture https://agriculture-de-conservation.com ... -etat.html
0 x

Back to "Garden: landscaping, plants, garden, ponds and pools"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 153 guests