The truth about organic food

[Vanguard1917]

Article (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2691/)

Organic food production cannot feed the world and does not produce healthier food. So why, then, are more and more middle class Westerners championing this inferior method of food production?

[Jazzratt]

See I already thought this, but that must be my yniscism showing through.

[NZ_Commie]

WTF is that bilge....

They miss most major arguments behind a new green revolution in agriculture. Monoculturism, soil degradation, runoff and ecological impact of pesticides (not necessarily OUR CONSUMPTION of pesticides) are frivilously addressed.

Modern agriculture is backward and market driven, not taking a holistic view to sustainable production and actual food provision (merely production and pricing measures). Organics and a sustainably planned agricultural system IS the way forward.

[Mordichai]

Precisely as NZ_Commie says. It is the modern system of agriculture that cause problems, Organic measures are a simple return to a non-market driven production. They are better option in all respects. Not only are they healthier (though I realize this is under dispute, the lack of pesticides and chemicals is a huge difference), more enviromently friendly as well as less demanding on the animals it also supports small farmers over the large. Those who farm organically have generally chosen to do so through their own principles and choices, isn't this something we should support?
Buying from a local organic farmer is good for us, them and society. Suggesting that the world can't feed itself as it has done for centuries is preposterous. We don't need to douse our fields in chemicals to feed those who live about it, only if you're selling as many crops as possible elsewhere for profit.

I'd also like to challenge the quote that the article takes it's impetus from. A Government Minister is not going to upset an influential and important segment of the population: wealthy farmers, better to placate them and undermine the Organice movement.

[Delirium]

Organic farming is more efficient, modern agriculture requires huge amounts of petroleum based products to work successfully. Local organic foods are where it's at.

[apathy maybe]

As previously pointed out, organic farming and organic food is about more then just good health (though that is important despite what the article might say). It is also about the use of petrochemicals, pollution and the environment.

As to being inefficient, 1. does it actually matter? 2. some sorts of organic farming are quite efficient (such as Permaculture).

For meat eaters organic food is actually more important. Animals that are fed large amounts of antibiotics, steroids and other drugs are potentially dangerous for those who eat the corpses. Antibiotics (more are given to animals that are then eaten then to humans worldwide) are used as a widespread way of killing bacteria leads to bacteria being resistant to these antibiotics.

[powertothepeople]

support your local farms

[cumbia]

I always thought this, this is why I find it so hypocritical when vegans think their diet is a rejection of anti-mainstream when its nothing more then clever marketing.

[Fawkes]

Suggesting that the world can't feed itself as it has done for centuries is preposterous. We don't need to douse our fields in chemicals to feed those who live about it, only if you're selling as many crops as possible elsewhere for profit.
Organic farming methods worked fine in the past because 6 billion humans did not inhabit the earth. Now, technological advancements in agriculture are very needed so as to increase productivity while at the same time, also being more environmentally friendly. Organic farming can do the latter but not the former.

I thought this article was pretty good except for the part about environmental concerns. All the article did was say how local farmer's markets are bad for the environment because they transport the produce less efficiently. The author made a half-assed attempt at deproportionizing organic farmings affect on the environment while saying nothing about how non-organic farming affects the environment.

[NZ_Commie]

Organic farming methods worked fine in the past because 6 billion humans did not inhabit the earth. Now, technological advancements in agriculture are very needed so as to increase productivity while at the same time, also being more environmentally friendly. Organic farming can do the latter but not the former.

Fawkes, brother, why confuse ORGANICS as backward and outdated?....modern organics is a scientific agriculture based on high levels of skill, statistical measure and environmental control and balance. In Soya farms in Argentina, it has been shown that soya production has actually INCREASED by use of organically based phosphates and nitrate solubles compared to that of chemical superphospate and nitrogen dressings. And along with the added benifit of not destroying long term soil prospects...its rather appealing!!!!

Foresight is needed if we want to continue consuming at any rate NEAR our current levels. Organics is a way forward, not a return to the past.

[redflagfires]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:27 pm
Precisely as NZ_Commie says. It is the modern system of agriculture that cause problems, Organic measures are a simple return to a non-market driven production. They are better option in all respects. Not only are they healthier (though I realize this is under dispute, the lack of pesticides and chemicals is a huge difference), more enviromently friendly as well as less demanding on the animals it also supports small farmers over the large. Those who farm organically have generally chosen to do so through their own principles and choices, isn't this something we should support?
Buying from a local organic farmer is good for us, them and society. Suggesting that the world can't feed itself as it has done for centuries is preposterous. We don't need to douse our fields in chemicals to feed those who live about it, only if you're selling as many crops as possible elsewhere for profit.

I'd also like to challenge the quote that the article takes it's impetus from. A Government Minister is not going to upset an influential and important segment of the population: wealthy farmers, better to placate them and undermine the Organice movement.
wonderfully spoken :P

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:27 pm
Organic measures are a simple return to a non-market driven production.
Huh? "Organic foods" are totally market-driven.

They're driven by the fact some people will pay a lot extra for food with the "organic" label. A whole number of major agribusiness companies have their own "organic" brands.

"Organic food" is a business like any other. "Organic" is basically just a synonym for "expensive" and it's like any other status symbol. People are willing to pay more because it has a higher price tag on it: must be worth more then, right?

The whole "organic food" fad is certainly not an option for most working people and it's not likely to become one. Also, its promoters are often also promoting a whole range of reactionary, antitechnology political agendas.

Decisions on what kinds of pest control and fertilization methods are appropriate need to be made case-by-case, based on a number of factors - not based on a graven-in-stone commandment, Thou Shalt Not Use Any Synthetic Chemicals.

For more information on this, I recommend this letter by a farmer to the Militant (http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6531/653151.html), this article on organic farming in response (http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6531/653150.html), the whole series it's part of (http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6534/653450.html) and finally New International magazine #13, which contains a debate following up on those articles.

[Vargha Poralli]

The organic farming method had worked well and a reasonable success in Cuba. (http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/articles/657) Any way we cannot speculate that it would work every where.




The whole "organic food" fad is certainly not an option for most working people and it's not likely to become one. Also, its promoters are often also promoting a whole range of reactionary, antitechnology political agendas.

But here in India central government actually spends(From 1957) crores of money in subsidising fertilizers and pesticides etc every year.But the price is usually very low for farmers but very high for consumers(80% of them are working class people).So the affordablity of farmers is a non-issue IMO considering the situation of country I live in.And also we have to take in to account many other ecological issues in using chemicals at present like Harmful effect of pesticides and fertilizers,soil erosion etc.,

This argument is somewhat the most important issue which matters not only to us but also for next generations.

[Corvus]

It is stupid idiotic threads like this that make me hate coming here.

Those who trash organic food are short sighted and speak as if they are experts upon the topic. And let me clarify something. I speak as an ecologist who happens to enjoy eco-toxicology. It's a fun science.

It is funny how so many people on this forum trash certain political agendas because they are based on oil.

How come some of the same people encourage the use of oil on our crops then? Do they not understand that the fertilizers they support are made from oil? Do they not know that they pesticides they -encouraged in this thread- use are produced by oil? Do they also not know they giant monocultures created and maintained by machinery are ran and produced by oil?

Now oil is not sustainable at our current usage rates. How come we are producing a monoculture of farming methods then? Based on a resource that is going to become excessivly more expensive in the neighboring years due to Hubert's Oil Peak Theory.

Designing and encouraging a single style of agriculture is short sighted. Designing and encouraging a style of agriculture that encourages monocultures is stupid. And anyone who claims otherwise is either biased with money, an idiot, and or uneducated.

If you believe that pesticides are the solution. You are idiotic. Foresters, ecologists, biologists, and most local modern farmers have come to the conclusion that the use of pesticides damages the land over a long scale, resulting in long term reduction in productivity.

The application of fertilizers damages our water quality, and encourages the growth of unwanted plants which lead to the use of herbicides. Which have been directly link to health concerns in humans. This correlation has been known about since the times of Silent Springs. (a horrible book by the way, never read it)

Fertilizers, have no known link to the health of humans. Granted. And the term "organic" is more often a joke, and has turned into a marketing scheme. However our (North America) style of agriculture is going to crash within 15 years. I will put all my educational papers, my degrees, my diplomas, everything. This is a promise I am willing to make.

If we do not revolutionize our farming style (and Im not saying organics are the way to go, but they are considerable better than traditional) we will have more problems for our farmers. These problems will relate to economic hardship. Aren't you "commies" trying to avoid that by not falling for the same trap capitalism has fallen into, short sightedness and blinded for profit?

Now my attack and support of organics in Canada.

To be labeled organic here in Canada you have the unfortunate pleasure of going through a few years of paper work. Your farm, your neighbours and your water source must be tested for chemical pesticides, fertilizers, or herbicides.

This is near impossible, because almost all farmland in Canada, has been farm land since colonization, and has evolved their methods as technology has advanced. And therefore has experienced some degree of chemicalization.

However people are trying, and the more organics are encouraged, the lower that price we will eventually see. This like, computer technoloy has a cost curve we must sit through in our current economic system.


I will conclude by saying those who are educated and attack organics. You are stupid. Those who are not educated in the environmental field, and attack organics. Dont pass your judgment on a field that escapes your knowledge. I dont tell doctors how to do their job, and I expect them not to tell me how to do my job.

Those who are educated and lent their support to organics, thank you.


Brea, angry at the short-sighted people on this forum!
(edit for spelling of chemicalization)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:02 pm
Those who trash organic food are short sighted and speak as if they are experts upon the topic. And let me clarify something. I speak as an ecologist who happens to enjoy eco-toxicology. It's a fun science. ion)
This is a good example of a fallacious argument from authority. Because you are an ecologist (I'll assume that's true for the sake of argument) does not make you an expert on geology ("Peak oil"), methods of agricultural production, or many other things you talk about in this post. Many people who are specialists in one field are not even generally knowledgeable about others.


It is funny how so many people on this forum trash certain political agendas because they are based on oil.

How come some of the same people encourage the use of oil on our crops then? Do they not understand that the fertilizers they support are made from oil? Do they not know that they pesticides they -encouraged in this thread- use are produced by oil? Do they also not know they giant monocultures created and maintained by machinery are ran and produced by oil?

If anyone thinks trashes "certain political agendas because they are based on oil." because they think oil is some inherently evil substance, they're superstitious idiots.

IMO the only validity of "No Blood for Oil" is as a bumper-sticker version of the analysis that the U.S. and other imperialist powers want strategic control of important mineral resources, and the ability to invest in and profit from their production. Has little to do with how much they consume themselves; anyone with money can buy oil as long as it remains a world-market commodity.


Based on a resource that is going to become excessivly more expensive in the neighboring years due to Hubert's Oil Peak Theory.

An odd way for a scientist to phrase something: do objects fall due to a theory of gravity? Anyway, the whole "peak oil" nonsense has been previously debated. Lemme just point out that previous predictions of raw materials running out have proved false (Erlich's bet for example.)


Designing and encouraging a single style of agriculture is short sighted.

I agree! A good argument against the organic agriculture commandment "Thou Shalt Not Use Any Chemical Pesticides Whatsoever." Rather, these things can and should be decided more flexibly, based on a range of pros, cons, and social priorities, without absolute commandments.


Designing and encouraging a style of agriculture that encourages monocultures is stupid.

What your point is here, I'm not sure. People had monocultures before modern agricultural chemicals - they just had periodic crop blights as well. Apparently the advantages of monoculture - mass production, basically - were sufficient to keep people planting 'em anyway.

That modern agricultural chemicals have made potato famines less common does not seem like such an awful thing to me. Of course, that may prove hard to sustain in the long run - by merely repeating the same methods.

But I don't think "Thou Shalt Never Cultivate Anything in Monoculture" is a good commandment either.


If you believe that pesticides are the solution.

Straw man. Pesticides are merely one tool. Of course they have drawbacks and sometimes its better not to use them, use them more moderately, or choose a different one.


Fertilizers, have no known link to the health of humans. Granted. And the term "organic" is more often a joke, and has turned into a marketing scheme. However our (North America) style of agriculture is going to crash within 15 years. I will put all my educational papers, my degrees, my diplomas, everything. This is a promise I am willing to make.

Others have made similar predictions, and been proven wrong. Can we work out a way to actually bet money on this? Probably not in a practical way that would actually let me collect on it.


If we do not revolutionize our farming style (and Im not saying organics are the way to go,

If you're not saying they're the way to go, then why are you calling people idiots for saying they're not the way to go?

[chimx]

The whole "organic food" fad is certainly not an option for most working people and it's not likely to become one.

I generally agree. I don't know anyone that can afford to shop exclusively at organic food stores. I have tried to once or twice in the past and my bill is over $50 for one weeks of groceries, and I can't afford that.

But that isn't a criticism of organic agriculture. It is a criticism of capitalism, and how healthy food is for rich assholes, while I'm left eating top ramen and pesticide wax apples.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:29 pm
But that isn't a criticism of organic agriculture. It is a criticism of capitalism, and how healthy food is for rich assholes, while I'm left eating top ramen and pesticide wax apples.
It indicates the present organic food business is a lifeboat for a few rich people to get off the Titianic which they steered onto a toxic iceberg, leaving the rest of us behind.

And any social system will have to take production costs into account. Purist organic practices aren't going to feed six billion people.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I don't have the knowledge to offer a proper comment, but organic food tastes far better in my experience. :)

-Alex

[Janus]

What I dislike about the organic food practice is how some organizations such as the Green Party try to get workers and those of the lower class to purchase such foods touting them as ecologically beneficial,etc. even though they are simply too expensive for many people to purchase regularly (the store bought kind that is).

[chimx]

Its the liberal guilt attitude of voting with your dollars: "don't buy pesticide apples, buy organic ones. its good for the earth." "Don't buy inexpensive shoes from walmart, go buy some $200 from a local store which ensures they were made in the US under humane conditions."

I can't afford that.

[NZ_Commie]

Its the liberal guilt attitude of voting with your dollars: "don't buy pesticide apples, buy organic ones. its good for the earth." "Don't buy inexpensive shoes from walmart, go buy some $200 from a local store which ensures they were made in the US under humane conditions."

I can't afford that.


:P ...maybe your missing the true meaning of organics,.....you COULD save yourself money.....I save around $12.50NZD a week by GROWING MY OWN VEGETABLES.

Its not just good for the earth, its not just good for your body, its good for the struggle. Self sufficency and self dependency and self provision, rather than relying on flawed market driven systems.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:25 am

Its the liberal guilt attitude of voting with your dollars: "don't buy pesticide apples, buy organic ones. its good for the earth." "Don't buy inexpensive shoes from walmart, go buy some $200 from a local store which ensures they were made in the US under humane conditions."

I can't afford that.


:P ...maybe your missing the true meaning of organics,.....you COULD save yourself money.....I save around $12.50NZD a week by GROWING MY OWN VEGETABLES.
Yeah, because everyone has the fucking space for that shite, and of course that would supply you constantly with high quality vegetables :rolleyes: Twat.


Its not just good for the earth, its not just good for your body, its good for the struggle. Self sufficency and self dependency and self provision, rather than relying on flawed market driven systems. Though flawed the market provides me personally with everything I need. My only concern is that it does not the same for others.

[Kami]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:25 am
:P ...maybe your missing the true meaning of organics,.....you COULD save yourself money.....I save around $12.50NZD a week by GROWING MY OWN VEGETABLES.


Please explain to me exactly HOW someone who is, say, living in a third story flat, in the middle of London, might do this?

Prat.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Kami+February 17, 2007 01:00 am--> (Kami @ February 17, 2007 01:00 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 10:25 am
:P ...maybe your missing the true meaning of organics,.....you COULD save yourself money.....I save around $12.50NZD a week by GROWING MY OWN VEGETABLES.


Please explain to me exactly HOW someone who is, say, living in a third story flat, in the middle of London, might do this?

Prat. [/b]
Guerrilla gardening? (i.e. reclaiming land in your area and planting stuff in it)

I'm not saying that that's for everyone, but it's good in two ways- it reclaims land (especially if it's a community garden) AND people get free healthy food.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+--> (Jazzratt) Yeah, because everyone has the fucking space for that shite, and of course that would supply you constantly with high quality vegetables rolleyes.gif Twat



Its not just good for the earth, its not just good for your body, its good for the struggle. Self sufficency and self dependency and self provision, rather than relying on flawed market driven systems.
Though flawed the market provides me personally with everything I need. My only concern is that it does not the same for others.[/b]


Kami
Please explain to me exactly HOW someone who is, say, living in a third story flat, in the middle of London, might do this?

Prat.


Did any of you read the link I gave about the success story of Organic Farming in Cuba. I think that links answers all of your questions.

Of course the method will not work everywhere especially in places where people don't even know their neighbour.It needs a community to be fully involved to achieve success.

[NZ_Commie]

Great, i get called a Twat and Prat because i choose not to depend on capitalism COMPLETELY for sustinance. Thanks guys.

If you live in an apartment, talk to other tenants and see if Roof gardening is indeed an option.

g.ram and mujer Libre, i concur.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:15 am
Great, i get called a Twat and Prat because i choose not to depend on capitalism COMPLETELY for sustinance. Thanks guys.
You got off lightly, condescending prick. The soil conditions in most built up urban areas are just not suitable for growing decent vegetables. Also enjoying this food all year round is impossible as it takes time to grow. Oh and when you are growing your "organic" carrots I'll be prepared to wager money that they are the long, straight, orange ones that were the product of our first foray into GM. As for "depending completely on capitalism" of course I do, it's the fucking system I live under, I don't have time to fuck about with lifestylist shite like this.


If you live in an apartment, talk to other tenants and see if Roof gardening is indeed an option. And that will provide, nice, veg the entire block of flats?

[Vanguard1917]

...maybe your missing the true meaning of organics,.....you COULD save yourself money.....I save around $12.50NZD a week by GROWING MY OWN VEGETABLES.

Even if this is true (which i highly doubt), $12.5NZD a week is a small price to pay for the mass majority of people who do not have the time or the desire to grow their own vegetables and to raise their own livestock in their back gardens or on their roofs.


Self sufficency and self dependency and self provision, rather than relying on flawed market driven systems

The modern market system in advanced capitalist countries - where the problem of human hunger has largely been solved, and where human beings live longer and healthier lives than ever before - is a million times more advanced a system than the one in which human beings spent all of their time struggling to raise enough food to survive.

Your anti-capitalism is the anti-capitalism of fools. That's why you're being called names.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:51 am
Did any of you read the link I gave about the success story of Organic Farming in Cuba. I think that links answers all of your questions.

But what Cuba has done is not the same as what the "Organic Farming" movement promotes. The Cuban government does not have any policy that pesticides are always bad.

They use chemical pesticides in some situations, and not in others. For example, they don't use chemical pesticides in urban agriculture because lots of people would be exposed. But Cuba continues to use pesticides and other agricultural chemicals in raising sugar and several other crops.

Also, they're having a hard time affording lots of petroleum-based chemicals after the collapse of the USSR. If they could afford more, they'd probably use more.

The Special Period was a time of great hardship for Cuba's population, and Cuban working people did all kinds of things in order to survive. These necessities shouldn't all be turned into virtures, as the article you linked tends to - for example, one of the people quoted says the use of oxen is positive. It's not so fun for whoever has to plow with them.

This article I linked earlier takes some of the "organic farming" hype that uses Cuba as an example (http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6531/653150.html)

[welshred]

People say there is no health benefits of eating organic food, so why are there harmful labels on fertilizers and pesticides? People wouldnt eat them so why is acceptable to have them in food?

[dannthraxxx]

i love this community.


i've changed a lot of views since becoming a member of this community, mostly because most opinions here are unbiased.


as for organic foods, organic basically doesnt exist unless you're growing some potatoes in your back yard. and unless you live somewhere in the hills, you dont have these joys.



the way people look at food is so ridiculous.


i'm basically what you would call a "freegan."


however, the views of most vegans, vegetarians, etc are blatantly retarded.


i think more people should pick up cannibalism, that would solve the population problems and all the un-needed bickering.

[NZ_Commie]

You got off lightly, condescending prick.

Im sorry, you must be severly be mis-reading me, i cannot see how i am being condescending. Petty-liberal-green opinion and lifestylism IS blithering,but its my personal opinion that organics is pragmatic.


The soil conditions in most built up urban areas are just not suitable for growing decent vegetables. Also enjoying this food all year round is impossible as it takes time to grow.

Years of abuse have damaged urban soil quality, agreed....so rehabilitate your available soil where possible, thats progressive, not taking any extra unnecessary surface area. And by use of crop diversification (temprate climates) and hot-housing (northen hem winters) you CAN extend growing periods and allow yourself access to this food all year around.

Jazzratt, if you disagree, great, debate. Why do you appear to consistantly reduce debates to personal attacks? You just come off as an arsehole.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:32 am

You got off lightly, condescending prick.

Im sorry, you must be severly be mis-reading me, i cannot see how i am being condescending. Petty-liberal-green opinion and lifestylism IS blithering,but its my personal opinion that organics is pragmatic.
Fair enough if I'm misreading you, you did come off as condescending though. I would disagree with your opinion that growing these vegetables is pragmatic and organics in general just aren't pragmatic at all - with pesticides and the like you can destroy all unwanted pests and with GM you can create foods that are simply better bred for taste, size and growing speed. Organics? Pah! You just get tiny withered tomatoes and a knobbly purple carrot. If you do it on a household level, assuming you can get the damn things to grow they just won't taste as nice - unless of course you're one of these people given to having their expectations change their sensory perceptions of food ( In the same way expectations turn a sugar pill into a medicine.).



The soil conditions in most built up urban areas are just not suitable for growing decent vegetables. Also enjoying this food all year round is impossible as it takes time to grow.

Years of abuse have damaged urban soil quality, agreed....so rehabilitate your available soil where possible, thats progressive, not taking any extra unnecessary surface area. And if the soil you can "rehabilitate" amounts to a patch of about four square foot? Or if you don't own the soil? I don't even see why it's progressive - encouraging people to boycott organic foods so that your local farmer doesn't go under ( I know from a friend of mine that getting organic status on a farm is actually expensive and difficult and you have less chance of selling your crop because it looks unappealing compared to corporate 'organics'. ).
And by use of crop diversification (temprate climates) and hot-housing (northen hem winters) you CAN extend growing periods and allow yourself access to this food all year around. And what do you eat while you wait for your crops to grow? Meat on its own?


Jazzratt, if you disagree, great, debate. Why do you appear to consistantly reduce debates to personal attacks? You just come off as an arsehole. Oh I just love this little rant I get at the end of nearly every post by someone clutching at straws, they just make my day, when I wake up in the morning I think "Will it be a good day? Will I be able to witness the splendid whining of an insulted child?" and then yes, gratification in the form of this. :rolleyes: (Anyone a little slow on thinking should consider that maybe, just maybe I was being sarcastic - oh and I hate having to put these slow of thinking messages up but the number of drooling cretins that infest this board forces me to.). I wouldn't say one word in one post and two words in another is a consistent degenerations into personal attacks (plural? :wacko: ). The debate is there, I simply put personal attacks in for my won amusement/stress relief.

[ichneumon]

with pesticides and the like you can destroy all unwanted pests

american agriculture looses a larger percentage of crops to pests now than we did before we started using pesticides. no, you can't. it doesn't work. evolution, that force you basically deify, will not allow that.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by ichneumon+February 20, 2007 06:25 pm--> (ichneumon @ February 20, 2007 06:25 pm)
with pesticides and the like you can destroy all unwanted pests

american agriculture looses a larger percentage of crops to pests now than we did before we started using pesticides. no, you can't. it doesn't work. evolution, that force you basically deify, will not allow that. [/b]
May be you should elaborate this point


ichneumon
evolution, that force you basically deify, will not allow that.

what this has to do with evolution ?

[ichneumon]

surely you are aware of pesticide resistance and the evolution of such? the figure comes from a book "the evolution explosion", which i read for an evo-bio class. i will dig up the book asap.

really, though, what would you expect? evolution is literally a force of nature. human ingenuity has serious limits, especially in the area of pesticide development. the same is true of antibiotics. you have to develop a targeted poison, very specific. poisons are static things, your enemy is dynamic and alive. you are bound by not killing yourself or your environment in the process, the enemy is not.

this is not because i hate technology or progress or anything like that. it's just realism. i don't know the answers for dealing with the situation, but i'm fairly certain the answer is NOT bigger and better poisons.

this is what i found on the web - not exactly what i said, but close...


In 1965 American farmers used 335 million pounds of pesticides, in 1989 they used 806 million, in 1997 it was up to 985 million pounds. That’s 3½ pounds for every person in the country, at a cost of 8 billion dollars. Does this seem to be working? Isn’t this an effective way to decrease crop losses to insects? Maybe not: in 1948, when pesticides were first introduced, farmers used roughly 50 million pounds of pesticides and suffered about 7 percent loss of the crops in the field. By comparison, in 2000, the nearly 1 billion pounds of pesticides resulted in a 13 percent loss2.

from PestRest pdf (http://zeeman.ehc.edu/envs/Hopp/Pesticide%20Resistance.pdf)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 06:55 am

with pesticides and the like you can destroy all unwanted pests

american agriculture looses a larger percentage of crops to pests now than we did before we started using pesticides. no, you can't. it doesn't work. evolution, that force you basically deify, will not allow that.
Is this conceivably a misleading use of statistics? Could the increasing total volume of production have something to do with this? Say, more production per acre creating a better environment (more concentrated food-source) for pests to grow and breed?

Or could this be merely proving that due to evolved resistance, chemical pesticides are less effective than when they were first introduced - not that they're totally ineffective? Or could it be that environmental restrictions on pesticide use have reduced their effectiveness?

Statistics and pesticides: use with care.

[ichneumon]

regardless of how the stats read, it is sobering. this deserves further exploration - perhaps others can look into it as well.

%crop loss is fairly absolute, so is 3.5#/person. both are frightening. still, considering the stats for the war on disease, which are well known, it's not suprising. in the '60's we honestly believed the war on disease was almost over, that malaria was on the verge of extinction. now it kills more than ever. it's a fact of evolution. pests will find ways to eat the crops because they are an excellent source of concentrated food, just like germs will find ways to eat *us*.