Hacker News Reader

Start by picking GMOs instead of the woo-woo that is organic farming. See e.g. a German-funded meta-analysis[1] that found that:

"[...] the adoption of herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybean, maize, and cotton, and insect-resistant (IR) maize and cotton has resulted in a 22% increase in average yields, a 37% overall decrease in pesticide use, and a 68% increase in farmer profits.".

1. http://www.theskepticsguide.org/gm-impact-meta-analysis

How do these impact the insect world?

It is a meta study, but in this field I would take a hard look at the selected studies before I trust those results (I did not take a hard look, so I can't say). A 37% decrease of something that ruins drinking water is surely better than nothing, but only an incremental improvement. It can easily be offset by agriculture growth within the next decades.

That’s a nice meta study, but not a single one of those crops is grown in Germany.

yes, but for those yields, you need to increase the use of herbicides.

Which has unintended consequences.

GMOs are currently faster horses.

To accurately assess the long-term cost/benefit of GMOs vs organic farming, one would need to understand the long-term externalized costs of each.

We understand the long-term impact of organic farming. We do not understand the long-term impact of many GMOs.

> 37% overall decrease in pesticide use

What's "pesticide use"? If I use 1L of super-strong broad-spectrum pesticide instead of 10L of super-weak narrow-spectrum pesticide, is that really an improvement?

That's not how it works. Instead of 1L of strong broad-spectrum herbicide you use 1L of strong narrow herbicide for weed A, 1L of strong narrow herbicide for weeds B & C, etc. None of the narrow herbicides are weak, they are just more specific in their target because you need something that kills the weeds dead but does not kill the plant you want to stick around and grow.

> insect-resistant (IR) [...] decrease in pesticide use

So the pesticides do not count if you let the plants produce them themselves?

Also I find it kind of hard to believe that making plants herbicide resistant and spraying them with herbicides reduces the amount of pesticides used.

It's actually quite easy to believe because the mechanics makes sense: instead of a number of different herbicides to attack a large number of different weeds, herbicide resistant crop breeds allow you to use just one herbicide, with a much smaller total amount.

When joining EU, Czech Republic had to raise 5x nitrate limits in drinking water. Mainly for pollution in germany. Now water for toddlers is not safe for some aquarium fish.

Many aquarium fish are delicate little creatures, far more so than pretty much any human.

Sorry, but do you have a source for this? The EU only sets a maximum level (50 mg/l apparently [1]), but member states are free to set lower maximums.

[1] http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/nitrate-in...

This is bottled water. EU dictates common limits for common market. No source, it is over 10 years ago.

So it's hearsay then?

IA(Definitely)NAL, but is this what you're referring to?

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1...

If so, it says under (19) that member states are free to set more stringent limits if they so please.

Article 5 paragraph 2 in your link more explicitely says this as well.

Honestly I do not know, that is just something I read in specialized forum very long time ago.

But some points:

- EU Shengen rules are pretty strictly enforced. EU even regulates "curvature of bananas". I can not imagine situation where Germany could not sell bottled water on Czech market.

- All formulation are talking about human health; "essential quality and health parameters" or "if human life is endangered". I do not think this applies to german bottled water. Czech springs (and bottled water) are pretty high quality, and our limits were very strict even compared to international standards.

- I mentioned it as a curiosity. Because communism caused lot of pollution in here. Back in 2000 it was a huge contrast to cross borders to Germany or Austria. It is surprising that we had stricter rules on water.

Actually, no. While there is variability in ground- and surface water pollution across Europe, and safe levels are exceeded in some places, the overall trend is stable. See pretty much all reporting on this by e.g. the EEA, Eurostat, DG Agri/Env, etc.

First, one can say that these 'official' bodies are just in the pocket of 'big Ag' and can't be trusted etc. - it's a common trope, but there is no proof and also (although of course this doesn't count for anything in the larger context) contrary to by experience.

Secondly, just because things are 'stable', doesn't mean they're 'great' or even 'good'. There is obviously much work left, and despite many people's hate on the EU, things like the Nitrate Directive and others like it there are clear frameworks in place and things are looking up. Again, I'm not saying 'all OK, let's go home'; but factless scare mongering like 'massively polluted', 'need massively reducing fertilizer and pesticide use' etc. is counterproductive. I'm not even sure what you're implying - population restrictions? Rebirth of Malthusianism?

No?

http://www.kn-online.de/News/Aktuelle-Politik-Nachrichten/Na...

This is not happening?

The EU is suing Germany in front of the ECJ because Germany is far above the levels.

The EU Commission is literally suing Germany because our drinking water is exceeding the limits, and you say it’s not happening?

This http://www.dw.com/en/eu-sues-germany-over-water-tainted-by-n... isn’t happening?

> EU sues Germany over water tainted by nitrate fertilizer

> The European Commission has lost patience with Germany over the high concentration of nitrate fertilizer in its ground water. Taxpayers could now end up paying hundreds of millions of euros in fines.

This? https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/eu-ta...

This? https://www.thelocal.de/20161107/eu-sues-germany-over-water-...

This? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1453_en.htm

Every news outlet is reporting on this, and you’re saying it isn’t happening? We truly live in postfactual times.

You're focusing on just one event (the Commission suing Germany), an event that in the grand scheme is pretty insignificant; what I'm talking about is the overall trend. I never denied this enforcement action is happening, it would be pretty silly to do so. The GP claimed that water quality levels are declining (rapidly) and that some sort of enormous change in agricultural practices is needed to stop, let alone revert that (at least, that seems to be his claim; it's a bit unclear, upon rereading, whether he meant it narrowly for just those parts of Germany and what would be required to get within the limits of the Directive). That claim is not true.

> The GP claimed that water quality levels are declining (rapidly) and that some sort of enormous change in agricultural practices is needed to stop, let alone revert that (at least, that seems to be his claim; it's a bit unclear, upon rereading, whether he meant it narrowly for just those parts of Germany and what would be required to get within the limits of the Directive).

I can only speak for my state (Schleswig-Holstein), but the government has been saying this for years, that major agricultural change is necessary.

Our overall trend has been massively down, and it’s similar in many other parts of Germany.

So, even then, it’s still the Ministry of the Environment and Agriculture vs. you.

Northern Germany? Same here in the south (Bavaria).

For example, the small river that runs to and through Nuremberg is quite disgusting, lots of algae - the wrong kind, and visibly bad water quality. There is a lake in the east of the city where it runs into before going out the other end and continue through the inner city. That water is disgusting. It's quite obvious there is lots of agricultural runoff, before getting to the city the river passes mostly through farmland.

Despite disgusting, sometimes stinking water right in the city I have yet to see anyone complain or even raise the issue.

I'm from East Germany, and we had an even more polluted river (Saale), my grand parents told me people used to bath in it - I never saw anyone even touch the water. After reunification polluting industry was removed and all was cleaned up, now the water is wonderful, the right kind of algae grow, lots of fish, the water is clear and a pleasure to behold.

So Germany can do it, I have no idea why nobody cares about such a highly visible problem, after all, millions of inhabitants and visitors to the city see it every year. It stinks, literally. And sometimes it foams.

There also has just been an article in a major German paper (Spiegel) about concerningly high levels of nitrates in drinking water in many places. Still within official limits, but if you know something about those limits, their main component is "what is (technologically and financially) feasible", not "what is desirable". Also, they only test for compounds they know about already, there are thousands of compounds nobody even tests for because we have no idea how they work - especially not in combination with others. It is hardly even researched because it is too hard (not even lots of money can really help, the complexity problem is huge).

I think precision agriculture using data (multispectral satellite imagery, ground sensor data, etc) to minimise fertiliser/pesticide input for maximum yield will be able cut down their use a lot further