Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

thenation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 183 posts

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

#171

Post by bigmit37 »

korethr wrote: post #141
alexandercrohde wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, so here's the other side of the coin-- nobody actually has any idea what's definitely safe. Do you trust that because the EPA has put a number on a chemical that it can't be wrong? Why don't you guess what percent of the time when the EPA calls an exposure level safe does it go back and change its mind and decide it wasn't safe after all? Also, why are you confident the EPA knows all the long-term biological an…

> Well, so here's the other side of the coin-- nobody actually has any idea what's definitely safe. I'm going to disagree with that. I think there is a great deal of information available on what is and is not safe, available to those who will look. I think it is a gross overstatement that nobody has any idea what's definitely safe. Is that data perfect? No. But the data I'm able to find seems to have been workable s…

Problem is as presidents change , the EPA staff changes as well.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/court-orders-...

And certain pesticides are unbanned.

The EPA also isn’t listening to independent scientists who’s research is showing ill effects even within the current limits.

https://www.ehn.org/when-safe-may-not-really-be-safe-2621578...

The fact that farmers are getting sick from pesticides is what scares me. It’s another version of second hand smoke.

Strokes, heart attack and cancer among young people seem to be on rise ,and doctors seem to be puzzled. Sperm count is getting lower and lower and we have no idea why.

It’s not just pesticides, but we are getting exposed to other carcinogens, pollution, x-rays, contaminated water, Teflon that stays in your body etc etc and we have no studies determine the cumulative effects of everything.

Body is very complex and it could be that this combination could result in a lot more genetic mutations and health problems.

I wish we had something like community farming where one day a week (mandated day off from regular work)the community members help sustain their community farm, which is the farm that supplies food for the community. This way there is more autonomy and knowledge about which pesticides are used etc.

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

#172

Post by cies »

ben509 wrote: post #154
cies wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bodies have evolved to deal with crap substances through metabolism and excretion, so it just has to be Good Enough. Bodies had no time to evolve to deal with modern pesticides. Any idea what time evolution takes to do what it does? > a positive mindset would also appreciate that you lived to 85. I think that's besides the point. Because that does not rule out that getting older i.e. losing from a disease later in…

> Bodies had no time to evolve to deal with modern pesticides. Any idea what time evolution takes to do what it does? Sure, some people can't handle lactose, they have different responses to booze, etc. But, broadly, our bodies have much more general mechanisms to deal with contaminants, which is why our DNA is vastly simpler than plants that can't simply get up and move but must be able to survive in whatever toxins…

> Sure, some people can't handle lactose, they have different responses to booze, etc.

That different from evolution. When those that can handle smth (booze, lactose) better produce more offspring, that selective breeding. Evolving to be better off with lactose-all-life-long or booze takes a lot (A LOT) longer. Non of that is demonstrated for either lactose or booze.

> And I think that's my dispute: the world isn't pure, nature isn't pure, our bodies aren't pure.

So lets create all kinds of molecules that the have never been seen before and spread them in the food supply to increase yields/sales, because we serving the holy purpose of impurity.

I prefer I have the choice as a consumer. And I think give the choice at equal cost most people will choose poison-free.

> If we can get the prices on organic food down to where we can feed cities without famines, sure.

Easy, but it comes at a cost. For instance "no more animal products", this will open up enough land and subsidy budget to make organic plant-based for everyone viable.

Animal product another ugly-ass industry right there.

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

#173

Post by Not_a_pizza »

korethr wrote: post #79

Okay, this Environmental Working Group found traces of pesticides on produce. That's not terribly unexpected, given how most produce is, well, produced. What this article annoyingly neglects to mention, is the _numbers_ attached to those traces of pesticides. Where there large amounts of trace chemicals, such that the levels exceed the EPA's recommended safe exposure levels? Were they so high that dangerous levels of…

I don't think the final question is how much do we need to avoid. We are protecting ourselves and the things we want to keep alive in the future. We have to then ask, "Will this permanently destroy us or our living space?".

Also, science determines LD50 all the time. What they often do not check is what amount of pesticide needs to be consumed before your health or intelligence drop by 10%. Those would be excellent numbers to have available.

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

#175

Post by sbzodnsbd »

goda90 wrote: post #64
sbzodnsbd wrote: post #10

Only 90?? What does the other 10 do to avoid pesticides????

Maybe they've mutated to be better at breaking down and ejecting the pesticides from their bodies? Or they live in remote communes where they grow all their own foods.

10% of Americans do not eat their own food exclusively.

I think it’s more likely that 10% buy exclusively organic, and that the organic label is more honest than I thought. But that stretches the imagination too (do these high income individuals not eat out???)

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

#176

Post by likpok »

thatcat wrote: post #96
likpok wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying "there's less glyphosate therefore less pesticide" is poor reasoning, because glyphosate is replaced with other, generally more toxic, pesticides in organic crops. It's interesting that organic crops have glyphosate despite it being banned for use with them, but that's a separate discussion.

No it isn't. Glyophosate is broadspectrum herbicide for use with gmo glyophosate resistant crops only, there is no organic analogue to this. Also consider that the concentration used is much higher for glyophosate application and the reduced ability for it to be filtered from ground water creates additional externalities.

There is indeed no organic analog for glyphosate. But there are other pesticides that are routinely applied to organic crops, such as copper sulfate, pyrethrin or rotenone. Both copper sulfate and rotenone are moderately toxic to people, and rotenone is highly toxic to fish.

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

#177

Post by bigmit37 »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #157
korethr wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, so here's the other side of the coin-- nobody actually has any idea what's definitely safe. I'm going to disagree with that. I think there is a great deal of information available on what is and is not safe, available to those who will look. I think it is a gross overstatement that nobody has any idea what's definitely safe. Is that data perfect? No. But the data I'm able to find seems to have been workable s…

>> I think there is a great deal of information available on what is and is not safe It's not like the EPA does no testing, but what about the unknowns? For example, men's sperm counts have gone down 50% over the last 30 years and scientists have no solid explanation (despite >1000 journal articles on the topic). Are you confident that pesticides play no role in this? Or autism? Or immune disorders? The EPA doesn't e…

This was an enlightening article about how the standards set by the EPA don’t seem to be safe standard according to Harvard scientists: https://www.ehn.org/when-safe-may-not-really-be-safe-2621578...

It seems there are different classes of pesticides: some really unsafe pesticides that should be banned but aren’t.

What can we possibly do in this case? Grow our own food?

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

#178

Post by thatcat »

likpok wrote: post #176
thatcat wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn't. Glyophosate is broadspectrum herbicide for use with gmo glyophosate resistant crops only, there is no organic analogue to this. Also consider that the concentration used is much higher for glyophosate application and the reduced ability for it to be filtered from ground water creates additional externalities.

There is indeed no organic analog for glyphosate. But there are other pesticides that are routinely applied to organic crops, such as copper sulfate, pyrethrin or rotenone. Both copper sulfate and rotenone are moderately toxic to people, and rotenone is highly toxic to fish.

Rotenone (which has it's usage restricted in omri) and pyrethrin are pesticides, copper sulfate is anti fungal; these non synthetic moderately toxic treatments are replaced with other, generally more toxic treatments in non-organic crops.

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

#179

Post by throw16383 »

I'm a farmer from the UK and have an agronomist who advises us on pesticide applications.

He visited the USA and said, when he stepped into their spray sheds, it was like going back in time 40 years: all kinds of chemicals that have been banned in the UK were still allowed in the USA (organophosphates etc).

Of course if the article doesn't state the amount of pesticides found, it doesn't tell you anything really, but I wouldn't trust American food standards based on my anecdotal experience, flawed may it be.

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

#180

Post by darpa_escapee »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #168
darpa_escapee wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Great Irish Famine is less about potato blight and more about an economic system that saw the majority of crops grown during famine exported for profit, while those who tilled the soil were forced to rely on a single monoculture crop to sustain themselves (the potato).

Irish merchants and farmers had complained and demonstrated against the export ban and closure of ports during a previous famine as prices had plummeted. It was far more the over dependence on one variety and potatoes being such a large part of diet from tiny farms being so common. Presumably from having been divided too many times on inheritance.

> It was far more the over dependence on one variety and potatoes being such a large part of diet from tiny farms being so common. Presumably from having been divided too many times on inheritance.

Tenant farmers, by virtue of their tenancy, didn't inherit land that could be subdivided. Absentee landlords didn't manage their Irish properties directly, and had middlemen collect rent for them. Middlemen chose to subdivide properties in order to extract more revenue, leaving only small parcels for tenant farmers to feed themselves from.

The Wikipedia article[1] does a surprisingly good job of covering the causes of the famine:

> The middlemen leased large tracts of land from the landlords on long leases with fixed rents, which they sublet as they saw fit. They would split a holding into smaller and smaller parcels so as to increase the amount of rent they could obtain.

>...

> The 1841 census showed a population of just over eight million. Two-thirds of those depended on agriculture for their survival, but they rarely received a working wage. They had to work for their landlords in return for the patch of land they needed to grow enough food for their own families. This was the system which forced Ireland and its peasantry into monoculture, since only the potato could be grown in sufficient quantity.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Causes_...

Post reply on HN