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

Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

csanr.wsu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 208 posts

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#171

Post by ramblingrain »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #98
Blahah wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in this thread seem to be under the misapprehension that organic farming doesn't use pesticides or 'chemicals'. Everything is a chemical, and organic farming in particular uses some nasty ones (rotenone, copper sulfate, pyrethrins). Pesticides are not automatically bad - in fact some of them are almost unbelievably benign to humans and/or to the environment.

> Pesticides are not automatically bad - in fact some of them are almost unbelievably benign to humans and/or to the environment. I'm curious to know which pesticides fit this description.

In WA some apple orchards are sprayed with kaolin (a fine white clay). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaolin_spray. Diatomaceous earth is also used on some crops. Both of these are like... mechanical insecticides.

This page lists many "less toxic" insecticides - http://www.clemson.edu/extension/hgic/pests/pesticide/hgic27....

The replies in this thread from people claiming to be farmers are odd -- what crop? It seems pretty important. It sounds like it's hard to grow certain wine grapes some places, ok, but why do we have lists of the 'best' and 'worst' fruits/veggies to buy organic? They have less pest problems to begin with is my assumption, but I'm not really a farmer [beyond 10'x10' of herbs and veggies in the backyard].

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#172

Post by ramblingrain »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #165
Dylan16807 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that even if a compound is suitable for use at scale it might cost slightly more than current methods and therefore see almost no use.

Yes. But going back to my original question, it was in response to the statement that there are "almost unbelievably benign" pesticides with regard to human and environmental impact. So, while there was also an implication that we're talking about pesticides that might see practical use, I'm really not even holding out that requirement. I'm just inquiring into the names of those pesticides that are benign to both hum…

I replied a few levels up mentioning kaolin spray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaolin_spray).

For more information about 'particle films' (like kaolin spray) see this document. There are numerous compounds mentioned and very interesting references too. These techniques also can be mixed with conventional pesticides and achieve the same efficacy as pure pesticide.

Particle Films: A New Technology for Agriculture - http://blog.meyvelitepe.org/images/Book_Chapter_Particle_Fil...

"At the present time, a commercial particle film material, Surround crop protectant, is being used in about 90% of the Pacific Northwest pear market for the early season control of pear psylla and approximately 20% of the Washington State apple market to reduce sunburn damage."

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#173

Post by girvo »

randomdata wrote: post #147
unclebucknasty wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. That's an interesting response. However, the statement in question was explicitly regarding pesticides, not herbicides. And, implicitly, the context is those pesticides which are in use at scale on non-organic crops.

Nicotine would classify as insecticide that, while perhaps not completely benign, is considered to have minimal impact on human health (smoking it notwithstanding). A synthetically derived form of nicotine is the primary insecticide in use these days, although it's incredible success with the insect population is starting to give us second thoughts about using it.

IIRC, nicotine is a seriously powerful poison that can be absorbed through your skin, and mLs are all that's needed to kill a person?

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#174

Post by mikevm »

dang wrote: post #111

Url changed from http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/new-stu... , because several commenters were complaining about there being no link to the paper. We had to compress the title to fit.

I actually did that on purpose, and then immediately commented on the submission with a link to a page that contains the paper and supplemental data.

The reason I preferred to post the press release was simply because it explains the significance of the study and gives a little history, something that might not be obvious if I simply linked to the paper directly.

Unfortunately, my comment wasn't seen by many :-(. It would've been nice if one could post some supplementary text when submitting a link.

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#175

Post by makomk »

randomdata wrote: post #116
rdtsc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If people don't want organic food, I could generally care less except for one thing: efforts to put legal roadblocks in the way of locally grown food. How do you know that locally grown food is organic unless someone checks? Local grown and sold food doesn't necessarily mean "organic" it just means locally grown. Pesticides and chemicals are available for local growers too. Unless you grow it or personally know whe…

> The pesticide the shit out of one they sell. As a farmer myself, I find something intriguing in your comment. I take away visions of someone using way more chemical than necessary when reading this, but that stuff is expensive . There is no reason to use more. It's always considered a blessing when you don't have to use any, even if we assume the environmental/health impact is zero. Judicious use of pesticides can…

At least here in the UK - and I believe the US is the same - our major supermarkets won't buy fruit that isn't visually flawless, even when it doesn't affect the flavor. They charge the farmers for disposing of it too. So a lot of effort - and spraying - goes into keeping as much of the fruit flawless-looking as possible.

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#176

Post by ewoodrich »

keenerd wrote: post #170
ambler0 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard of this. Do you have an actual source?

Only primary sources. Pick a few chemicals, find their LD50 from a MSDS, find their application rate. Run the numbers. An organic fungicide: copper sulfate pentahydrate (aka CuSO4) A non-organic fungicide: iprodione (aka Rovral) LD50 of CuSO4: 472 mg/kg (rat) [1] LD50 of Rovral: 2g/kg (rat) [2] So straight up, the organic is four times more lethal to mammals. But that is just the beginning, because you have to use a…

LD50 (acute toxicity) does not necessarily correlate with harmful health effects from chronic exposure. Can you cite studies that demonstrate harms from exposure at the levels used in organic farming?

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#177

Post by jasonlotito »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #132
Blahah wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in this thread seem to be under the misapprehension that organic farming doesn't use pesticides or 'chemicals'. Everything is a chemical, and organic farming in particular uses some nasty ones (rotenone, copper sulfate, pyrethrins). Pesticides are not automatically bad - in fact some of them are almost unbelievably benign to humans and/or to the environment.

> Everything is a chemical It is as though words in human language can have multiple meanings. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chemical > 1. any substance used in or resulting from a reaction involving changes to atoms or molecules, especially one derived artificially for practical use

Especially, not exclusively.

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#178

Post by sjtrny »

offtopic wrote: post #160
e2e8 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off topic but just in case you didn't know, the expression is "I could NOT care less."

You might not be aware that the idom "I could care less" is in common usage, espechally in American english, and has the same meaning as "I could not care less".

"For all intensive purposes" is in common usage. It's still incorrect.

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#179

Post by cscurmudgeon »

jasonlotito wrote: post #177
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everything is a chemical It is as though words in human language can have multiple meanings. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chemical > 1. any substance used in or resulting from a reaction involving changes to atoms or molecules, especially one derived artificially for practical use

Especially, not exclusively.

Um no. It is taking about this one specific usage which is exclusive. Other usages are inclusive, but some usages refer only to artificial concoctions. (Like when people use the word "animal" to refer to non-human animals).

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#180

Post by AmirS2 »

Blahah wrote: post #55
rdtsc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If people don't want organic food, I could generally care less except for one thing: efforts to put legal roadblocks in the way of locally grown food. How do you know that locally grown food is organic unless someone checks? Local grown and sold food doesn't necessarily mean "organic" it just means locally grown. Pesticides and chemicals are available for local growers too. Unless you grow it or personally know whe…

People in this thread seem to be under the misapprehension that organic farming doesn't use pesticides or 'chemicals'. Everything is a chemical, and organic farming in particular uses some nasty ones (rotenone, copper sulfate, pyrethrins). Pesticides are not automatically bad - in fact some of them are almost unbelievably benign to humans and/or to the environment.

Is routine use of pesticides on 'organic' farms an american thing? I'm not familiar with the US organic standards / regulations.

In the UK, the Soil Association (organic standards body) claims [1] that pesticides are used "Very rarely" on organic farms. So it strikes me as quite odd that there's all this discussion about organic pesticides as if their use is on par (or even greater than) non-organic pesticide use.

[1] http://www.soilassociation.org/frequentlyaskedquestions/your...

Post reply on HN