Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryanalam | Hacker News Reader

In the US, the alternative to this would be to consume organic produce. However, most people don't realize that organic produce still uses plenty of, if not more pesticides than traditional production methods; they just use organic pesticides.

I wonder which is worse: highly mechanized, high efficiency, and low volume synthetic pesticides in traditional production methods - or low efficiency, high volume natural pesticides in organic production methods.

View on HN

Organic makes a totally unscientific distinction between synthetic and naturally-occurring substances. It's also a huge, and hugely profitable industry that lobbies effectively to prevent research funding into the safety of the substances it allows, and essentially exploits food privilege and scientific illiteracy.

Organic-permitted pesticides tend to be massively over-applied, and can be unbelievably toxic to a degree that would never be allowed for modern synthetic pesticides. Rotenone for example is horrenously toxic to aquatic life, but permitted in organic agriculture with litte regard for the ecological outcomes. Simple copper and sulphur compounds that are broadly toxic are permitted as fungicides in organic agriculture, but can also persist for a long time in the environment and cause serious ecological damage.

I'd take roundup over anything organic any day.

Where's your source that indicates organic pesticides are "low efficiency, high volume" Would love to read more about this as it may effect my purchasing decisions.

Also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Conyza

Which seemingly contradicts the "high efficiency" claim (at least moving forward)

Organic isn't all that either, for example https://www.facebook.com/newscientist/videos/101548759767395...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com