Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: GMO free sugar makes about as much sense as organic cigarettes imo. [View all]Lancero
(3,280 posts)61. Here's something showing pesticides are used in organics. You'll ignore it though.
Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:41 PM - Edit history (1)
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.htmlORGANIC PESTICIDES VERSUS SYNTHETIC PESTICIDES
Clearly, the less we impact our environment, the better off we all are. Organic farming practices have greatly advanced the use of non-chemical means to control pests, as mentioned earlier.
Unfortunately, these non-chemical methods do not always provide enough protection, and it's necessary to use chemical pesticides. How do organic pesticides compare with conventional pesticides?
A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.
It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.
It should be noted, however, that we don't know for certain which system is more harmful. This is because we do not look at organic pesticides the same way that we look at conventional pesticides. We don't know how long these organic pesticides persist in the environment, or the full extent of their effects.
When you look at lists of pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, you find warnings such as, "Use with caution. The toxicological effects of [organic pesticide X] are largely unknown," or "Its persistence in the soil is unknown." Again, researchers haven't bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides because it is assumed that "natural" chemicals are automatically safe.
WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD THIS BEFORE?
For obvious reasons, organic farmers have done little, if anything, to dispel the myth that "organic = chemical/pesticide-free". They would only stand to lose business by making such a disclosure.
Pesticide manufacturers have little concern in the matter. To them, "synthetic pesticides sold" and "organic pesticides sold" are both "pesticides sold".
As for conventional farmers, they are not really in a position to be critical. It would not be in their interest to draw attention to chemical and pesticide use.
The hypocrisy is astounding, really. Anti-science advocates say that companies are trying to push untested synthetic pesticides on people... All the while they are pushing untested pesticides on people. More hypocrisy is that, while saying big ag is pushing carcinogens on people... it turns out that the 'organic' pesticides they pushed were carcinogenic too.
I'd have more respect for this group if they had the honesty to admit to their hypocrisy, but they don't.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
130 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
GMO free sugar makes about as much sense as organic cigarettes imo. [View all]
yellowcanine
May 2016
OP
But yet you engaged, or at least pretended to. So the OP must not have been so bad.
yellowcanine
Jun 2016
#66
Organic, non-GMO sugar doesn't increase the use of pesticides or herbicides. n/t
pnwmom
May 2016
#33
Here, the FDA can tell you. https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/national-organic-pro
Todays_Illusion
Jun 2016
#52
It was your points you never supported to begin with and twice you were proven wrong
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#60
Here's something showing pesticides are used in organics. You'll ignore it though.
Lancero
Jun 2016
#61
Organic producers can use some pesticides. All pesticides are made of chemicals. Even water is a
yellowcanine
Jun 2016
#73
Tightly regulated by the USDA Marketing Service, as in they are providing a service to Big Organic®
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#96
That article doesn't mention sugar or GMOs. It is about fruits and veggies.
yellowcanine
Jun 2016
#115
And yeah we have been there before and you even admitted your claim was complete bullshit
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#130
what should be made clear to consumers is that 'organic' does not equal 'safe'
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#99
they sure don't use the most toxic ones like 2,4-d and glyphosate with polyethoxylated tallow amine
womanofthehills
Jun 2016
#92
No they use ones that are more toxic like copper sulfate and a lot more of it
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#97
It's about feeling better about something, even though it harms the environment.
HuckleB
May 2016
#13
GM Crops Now Banned in 38 Countries Worldwide – Sustainable Pulse Research
womanofthehills
Jun 2016
#94
There is, chemically, no difference, both are heavily processed and bad for you. N/t
Humanist_Activist
May 2016
#18
I might on average, eat about a teaspoon of sugar a week. And I eat organic.
Luminous Animal
May 2016
#21
It is worth paying more money for chickens raised humanly than for tortured chickens
womanofthehills
Jun 2016
#95
YOU MUST BE KIDDING - ALL THE ANIMAL FOOD HAS HIGH LEVELS OF GLYPHOSATE & GMO'S
womanofthehills
Jun 2016
#120
Leaving the health issue out of the debate, the GMO movement has turned natural plant life into
Vote2016
Jun 2016
#85
Unless you're being paid to promote GMOs on the internet, I doubt you have read as much research on
Vote2016
Jun 2016
#106
Is that because you're being paid to hawk organics on the interwebs?
Act_of_Reparation
Jun 2016
#113
If you are really interested in this topic, here is some real research on GMOs and intellectual
Vote2016
Jun 2016
#107
"Then the GMO cross pollinates ... and now the neighbouring farmer has a crop dependent..."
yellowcanine
Jun 2016
#110
It's just repetition of anti-GMO talking points which have been debunked a million times
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#116
"Power lines cause cancer" would have more of a potential scientific basis though.
yellowcanine
Jun 2016
#118