Anti-EPA House Votes To Let Agribusiness Dump Pesticides In Our Water

[Ban Hammer 13,548]

There's simply no excuse for pesticides, herbicides and other harmful chemicals in this day and age.

did steven take over the gecko's account?

[mawilson 2,133]

did steven take over the gecko's account?

No, but I wish he would come back here and say something. Why post if you're not going to participate in the discussion?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No, but I wish he would come back here and say something. Why post if you're not going to participate in the discussion?

He had to attend a drum circle. Didn't you get the invite?

[Ban Hammer 13,548]

He had to attend a drum circle. Didn't you get the invite?

maybe he went to remedial kumbaya camp

[JohnSmith2007 353]

There's simply no excuse for pesticides, herbicides and other harmful chemicals in this day and age.

There is simply no excuse to let people starve and the poor pay more for food because of an irrational fear of chemicals. The dangers of modern farming chemicals is overblown.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is simply no excuse to let people starve and the poor pay more for food because of an irrational fear of chemicals. The dangers of modern farming chemicals is overblown.

Issues are rarely ever black and white. Chemicals used for agriculture can have a positive impact as well as a negative. The argument then isn't whether or not chemicals haven't made a positive impact, but whether or not the negative consequences outweigh the positives. Take ammonium nitrate (fertilizer), for example. My father, who's first degree was in agriculture (Texas A&M), used to use that stuff on our lawns all the time. His first job out of college was working for Dow Chemical. He'll tell you though that as you use fertilizer on your lawn, the soil will become more and dependent on the use of chemical fertilizer. This is echoed in farming as well. A dependency on such chemicals to keep the crops growing continuously increases.

There are some farming techniques that have stood the test of time - crop rotation, composting, for example, that many farmers are returning to because they want to get off the drug-like dependency of chemicals to keep their crops growing. Those farmers will attest that there are far better methods and more sustainable methods than growing chemically-dependent crops. And the benefits far exceed the farm....they go all the way to the consumer.

[Zero Sum 305]

This is talking about dioxin and PCB's in fish, not farming chemicals. Industrial polution is a whole other subject.

Both Atrazine and Vinclozolin have short half lives of less than a year. Vinclozolin is a fungiside use on grapes and is not widely used elswhere. The link between them and obesity is casual at best. There is no conclusive proof that one causes the other. Still, even if there is a small causality between the two what is worse, not being able to feed our population or the small posibility that they cause obesity?

Unfortunately, you did not read the first link carefully. Let me point out a few of the chemicals focused on in just the first link:

PCBs- have been used as pesticide extenders, although not as much as industrial applications.

dioxins- mostly industrial, yes, and it still ends up in the food chain... including those farms we're talking about.

you failed to mention these (first link):

toxaphene- now banned in the US, but clearly commonly used in agriculture.

dieldrin- extremely persistent in the environment, and now prohibited in the US.

Now, since you want to argue chemistry with a chemical education, I point out that a chemical's environmental half-life varies by the concentration of factors that lead to its degradation. Having half lives of 13 days to 1 year, it still ends up in the food chain, meaning that you get to eat it. And even in its broken down forms (atrazine, for example, breaks down to cyanuric acid, that can be quite toxic when combined with other commonly found industrial and agricultural waste products) it can be a problem. Arguing a 'short' half-life while ignoring these chemicals' clear health effects shows that you may only be considering the side of the story you want to consider.

Vinclozolin is a fungiside use on grapes and is not widely used elswhere.

I know Wikipedia states this too. A more wide search will reveal greater use. As in used in more than just vineyards.

The link between them and obesity is casual at best.

Well... obviously.

There is no conclusive proof that one causes the other.

There's much more health literature out there that you have missed then. Perhaps by the time you find the proper moment to catch up, there will be even more.

[Zero Sum 305]

I'm sorry but that's just not true. In developed countries, yields on organic and conventional farms are almost equal.

Exactly- this implies that there can be a balance between pesticide use and less contaminating methods and still keep a population well-fed.

By well-fed we should note that it doesn't mean you get to eat 4 Big Macs at McDonalds and swear you're doing right by your body.

[mawilson 2,133]

There is simply no excuse to let people starve

Again, organic farms don't produce any less of the yield of their conventional counterparts.

[Zero Sum 305]

There is simply no excuse to let people starve and the poor pay more for food because of an irrational fear of chemicals. The dangers of modern farming chemicals is overblown.

Its hardly irrational. Irrational would be ignoring the data.

[mawilson 2,133]

But it isn't exactly an epidemic. The ones linked to pesticides and fertilizers that is.

It's what is called a "silent epidemic" because it doesn't kill you right away.

More and more Americans (including a lot of young children) suffer from

food allergies - a dramatic increase which has been linked to GMOs,

processed foods and the rise of pesticides in our produce.

You can't seriously believe it's all a coincidence?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It's what is called a "silent epidemic" because it doesn't kill you right away.

More and more Americans (including a lot of young children) suffer from

food allergies - a dramatic increase which has been linked to GMOs,

processed foods and the rise of pesticides in our produce.

You can't seriously believe it's all a coincidence?

most of those malidies are a result of what happens after the food leaves the farm. You are arguing apples and oranges. I would be all in favor of less processing of our foods. Yes there is some bad effects from residual pesticides but nothing that warrants canning farming chemicals like you want to do. The risk/benefit ratio of modern farming is worth it. Despite your assurances you still haven't proven that organic farming can take the place of modern farming. It just cannot be done. Now I would agree that some aspects of organic farming could be used more in modern farming but we can never get rid of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. I would think we could continue to improve those products to lessen the impact. Regardless, we are not going to get rid of modern chemicals any time soon. They will be with us for a long time to come. Cheap food will also be with us as long as we are a market based society. This discussion is all academic. I am tired of the "yes it will - no it won't" argument.

[Zero Sum 305]

most of those malidies are a result of what happens after the food leaves the farm. You are arguing apples and oranges. I would be all in favor of less processing of our foods. Yes there is some bad effects from residual pesticides but nothing that warrants canning farming chemicals like you want to do. The risk/benefit ratio of modern farming is worth it. Despite your assurances you still haven't proven that organic farming can take the place of modern farming. It just cannot be done. Now I would agree that some aspects of organic farming could be used more in modern farming but we can never get rid of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. I would think we could continue to improve those products to lessen the impact. Regardless, we are not going to get rid of modern chemicals any time soon. They will be with us for a long time to come. Cheap food will also be with us as long as we are a market based society. This discussion is all academic. I am tired of the "yes it will - no it won't" argument.

Many of those diseases definitely are a matter of lifestyle choice. What is contrary to your logic, and is being actually argued here, on the other hand, is a mounting body of evidence that indicates that the food chain itself is being manipulated and is not something that happens due to processing.

I do agree with your position that we will not be able to rid, under current production and consumption patterns, the chemical inventory being used to combat crop pests. A more common sense approach requires a more educated application of crop planting and the mitigation of environmental conditions beneficial to pest growth. At the same time we need to have a more educated population that will make wise dietary choices and the financial resources for that population to be able to afford healthy choices.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Humankind has not woven the web of life.

We are but one thread within it.

Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.

All things are bound together.

All things connect.

Chief Seattle, 1854

[JohnSmith2007 353]

maybe he went to remedial kumbaya camp

You were right it seems.