More Than 90% of Americans Have Pesticides or Their Byproducts in Their Bodies • Hacker News Board

Re: More Than 90% of Americans Have Pesticides or Their Byproducts in Their Bodies

#111

Post by primroot » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 9:56 PM UTC

korethr wrote: post #103

astrea wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also worth noting the EWG's reports have been questioned in the past for their bias. Heck, even the type of report this article mentions is commonly criticized: https://www.accountablescience.com/how-dirty-are-your-fruits...

There's another factor that I think the OP fails to account for and that's washing produce before cooking and consumption. It's a habit I've been in for as long as I can recall cooking with produce, which I probably picked up from my parents, and have seen in just about every kitchen I've been in. As far as I recall, it was less out of a concern over pesticide residue, but more to make sure all soil was removed from…

Ever heard of systemic pesticides?

"Pesticides can be classified based upon their biological mechanism function or application method. Most pesticides work by poisoning pests. A systemic pesticide moves inside a plant following absorption by the plant. With insecticides and most fungicides, this movement is usually upward (through the xylem) and outward. Increased efficiency may be a result. Systemic insecticides, which poison pollen and nectar in the flowers, may kill bees and other needed pollinators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide

Re: More Than 90% of Americans Have Pesticides or Their Byproducts in Their Bodies

#112

Post by AndrewGaspar » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 9:56 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #74

AndrewGaspar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We may be able to support our current population without pesticides (I don't know, I'm not really that immersed in the economics of it), but not without backsliding on the advances we've made against global poverty.

I think this is too pessimistic. If governments would stop messing around with subsidizing certain crops at the expense of others (not to mention so many third world governments cashing in on aid without any of it even getting to their people at all), food prices could be considerably cheaper than they are, even with pesticide-free farming methods. The main reasons for poverty today are political, not technical.

"We don't need known, existing solution X if we solve the incredibly complex and old-as-time problem Y" isn't really a compelling argument. Like, I oppose food subsidies as much as anyone, but 1) I'm not under any illusion that they're going away, and 2) I'm not sure how eliminating them would change the underlying utility that pesticides have.

Re: More Than 90% of Americans Have Pesticides or Their Byproducts in Their Bodies

#113

Post by strait » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 9:57 PM UTC

majora2007 wrote: post #53

devmunchies wrote: post #7

Is it possible to grow enough food in your backyard to live off of (plus chickens as a yard waste disposal) if you also work full time? I can't even eat at a restaurant without knowing if they use organic produce.

My wife and I are almost to the point where all of our veggies are from our backyard. Fruit is a WIP as we have a few trees and bushes, but they take a few years to start producing. We both work full time and spend the weekends out in the yard harvesting/planning. With irrigation to water and a little planning, it becomes a passive hobby. I will say, I think you'll still need to buy stuff, like beans, broths, spices,…

Beans keep being mentioned on the list of things not worth growing, when in fact, I've grown all the beans I've ever needed in very little space. Also the nitrogen fixation in the roots is a significant benefit for growing high protein content beans in less soil. (The roots don't require such a far and wide area for nitrogen scavenging.)

Re: More Than 90% of Americans Have Pesticides or Their Byproducts in Their Bodies

#114

Post by hammock » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 9:58 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #97

hammock wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glyphosate is not approved for organic use so that's an irrelevant point. Whether total pesticide load (however you want to measure that) is higher or lower for organic vs conventional, varies widely with crop, location and farming method. There are toxic organic pesticides like copper-based compounds that persist in the soil. And things like strawberry fields are fumigated with methyl bromide regardless of organic o…

Methyl Bromide was nearly completely phased out in the US as of 2005. https://www.epa.gov/ods-phaseout/phaseout-class-i-ozone-depl...

Fair point however it wasn't fully phased out until 2016. Here is a study of what farmers have done afterwards: http://calag.ucanr.edu/Archive/?article=ca.2017a0017&shareba...

Re: More Than 90% of Americans Have Pesticides or Their Byproducts in Their Bodies

#115

Post by omalleyt » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 10:08 PM UTC

chmln wrote: post #101

beenBoutIT wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, there has never been a case of mercury toxicity from normal consumption of commercial seafood recorded in any American medical journal. These larger species you mention could exist outside of that sphere.

I would bet that mercury toxicity is incredibly underdiagnosed, especially if it's not acute. Fatigue, insomnia, and a host of other symptoms are fairly common and not easy to spot as a part of a bigger problem. Anecdata: when I went to a large hospital they laughed off my idea that I have heavy metal poisoning and didn't even have the facilities to test for it. Only months later after visiting a naturopath and getti…

What was the treatment?

Re: More Than 90% of Americans Have Pesticides or Their Byproducts in Their Bodies

#116

Post by pdonis » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

AndrewGaspar wrote: post #112

pdonis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is too pessimistic. If governments would stop messing around with subsidizing certain crops at the expense of others (not to mention so many third world governments cashing in on aid without any of it even getting to their people at all), food prices could be considerably cheaper than they are, even with pesticide-free farming methods. The main reasons for poverty today are political, not technical.

"We don't need known, existing solution X if we solve the incredibly complex and old-as-time problem Y" isn't really a compelling argument. Like, I oppose food subsidies as much as anyone, but 1) I'm not under any illusion that they're going away, and 2) I'm not sure how eliminating them would change the underlying utility that pesticides have.

> I'm not under any illusion that they're going away

They never will if everyone has that attitude. I agree they aren't going to be made to go away instantly; but I don't think they're an "old-as-time problem" either.

> I'm not sure how eliminating them would change the underlying utility that pesticides have.

Eliminating food subsidies would improve things whether pesticides are used or not. They're orthogonal issues.

Re: More Than 90% of Americans Have Pesticides or Their Byproducts in Their Bodies

#117

Post by cies » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

mamon wrote: post #55

devmunchies wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i thought organic by definition meant that it didn't use pesticides.

The term "organic" only means something in Europe, because EU has much stricter rules regarding food quality and safety. In US it basically is just a marketing term meaning "overpriced food for hipsters".

Really? We get a lot of "EU-ORG" (the leaf of stars logo) stuff that is also "USDA Organic" labelled. I wonder how many of those products do not have the EU-ORG label in the US.

> EU has much stricter rules regarding food quality

And within the EU the standards are also widely different, especially in the non-EU-ORG stuff.

Re: More Than 90% of Americans Have Pesticides or Their Byproducts in Their Bodies

#118

Post by bobthepanda » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

beenBoutIT wrote: post #41

fencepost wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what happens when you're effectively an apex predator - you eat the things that eat the things with contamination and much of it gets concentrated into you, particularly the things that bioaccumulate over time. Outside of pesticides but similar, that's why it's important to limit things like tuna consumption particularly from larger species that can build to high mercury levels.

IIRC, there has never been a case of mercury toxicity from normal consumption of commercial seafood recorded in any American medical journal. These larger species you mention could exist outside of that sphere.

It is worth noting that the FDA recommends limiting fish consumption to 12 oz a week for mercury-related reasons: https://www.fda.gov/food/foodborneillnesscontaminants/metals...

Re: More Than 90% of Americans Have Pesticides or Their Byproducts in Their Bodies

#119

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 10:19 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #88

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality of the situation is that living will eventually kill you someday. It's merely a matter of how quickly you get there and how much you suffer along the way.

This is a terrible viewpoint, life should be an enjoyable experience and if people (or pesticide companies) are lowering that enjoyment we as a society should act and throw heaps of regulations to force a better outcome. I have no pity for any profit margin that even comes close to my care for our collective enjoyment of life.

...I don't know what viewpoint you're projecting onto my statement, because I'm not defending pesticide companies with it.

Parent and GP expressed that they often worried everything was trying to kill them, I'm trying to provide some perspective on that.

Re: More Than 90% of Americans Have Pesticides or Their Byproducts in Their Bodies

#120

Post by strait » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 10:22 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #102

strait wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't include beans on that list! They are the easiest of all to produce, as long as your summer isn't too terribly cold. Maybe you were thinking of corn?

Presumably the parent is referring to dry beans, which aren't exactly fun to process by hand. I grow them commercially and when we want to thresh even a small amount (i.e. nothing close to what one would want to sustain themselves on) for a moisture sample without having to take the combine to the field, it is a lot of work. Same goes for wheat. Anything that normally goes through a combine, really. Theoretically the…

I normally look forward to shelling my black beans by hand as I find it pleasant and relaxing, but yes, it does take some time that way, even for a few cups. However, I've also put loads of the shells into a sack when they were all pretty much dried and vigorously worked it over for less than a minute. Then, nearly all the beans will come pouring out into a pan where a fan or a little blowing will take out the little dry bits of shell. Not much work at all, though wheat is probably a lot tougher to do that way.

A friend asked me why I bother with dry beans, when they are so cheap to buy anyway. I replied that I can control the inputs, resulting in the highest quality beans, and they are so easy to grow, so why not? I'm not growing a ton of them to sell, so I care less about the economies of scale.