Glyphosate in Organic Hydroponic Food Production | Hacker News Reader

Glyphosate in Organic Hydroponic Food Production

livelovefruit.com

138 pointssahin-boydas57 comments

At least, when I am purchasing "Organic" products, I would expect to use the least or zero amount of pesticide/herbicide/etc. in the growth of the "organic" plants and animals.

If the article is showing the truth, it feels like those companies are cheating the consumers who are paying for that premium product. It's also unfortunate that there are certifications companies that are either created or "cooped" by companies that are really interested in bending the rules for their own sake.

Not sure if there is a way to block or hamper those interest group effectively.

*Edited: I understand that the companies are using the herbicide before the planting in order to "kill" whatever is there; however, the concept of organic - the way I believe - should avoid the usage of chemicals that are being used in the massive agriculture for cash crops; and even if that is not being actively use in the "organic" plant.

You're right that the organic designation is about completely avoiding the usage of certain substances. The article refers to this idea towards the end:

>As the soil becomes compacted and soaked with agrichemicals, the delicate microbiome of the soil is destroyed. The whole point of growing organically is to ensure this planet stays healthy and chemical-free.

> The whole point of growing organically is to ensure this planet stays healthy and chemical-free.

The planet is entirely made of chemicals, it can't be made chemical-free and, even if it could, that wouldn't be healthy.

I guess they the proponents kinda mean that (agricultural) chemicals be near their natural concentrations in arable lands. So there are going to be chemicals naturally, and harmful ones, but in normal non/not very harmful to humans concentrations. And of course earth is made of chemicals and “organic” chemicals (gotta use quotes so as to not confuse with organic chemistry) are also harmful (if they were not, they’d be of little use against pests).

Then lets use some better terms.

Petrochemicals and derivatives aren't good for the land. It depletes various types of long-accrued chemicals and biological structures that make it healthy.

Neonicotinoids and similar neurotoxins are bad for myriad life in the vicinity where these chemicals are deposited or sprayed.

If it ain't EM, strong, weak, or gravity, it's chemicals. But there's a whole slew of really nasty shit we humans have created that is devastating on the ecology. Some are damn near permanent, others mess with endocrine systems, others cause cancer of everything.. Probably a good idea to keep the bulk of these away unless we reallllly know what we're doing. And considering the usual reason is "to make a buck", we're selling our future selves really short, and we ain't asking them.

Kurzgesagt has a pretty great video[0] about organic food, and goes a little bit into what the definition of "organic" means. Digging through his citations[1] (which is awesome, btw), as far as American legal definitions and pesticides and the whatnot are concerned, the relevant law[2] says that pest and disease problems can be controlled using "non-synthetic controls, such as...repellents", meaning that pesticides can be used, as long as they're also "organic" (which, he notes later in the video, there are slightly less, but still non-zero traces of, and not necessarily safer[3])

That being said, there really shouldn't be a worry about traces of "chemicals" on organic OR non-organic produce, as the FDA has very strict guide lines and testing procedures that produce sellers go through[4] before sending out produce that almost everyone is well under.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PmM6SUn7Es [1]: https://sites.google.com/view/sourcesorganic/ [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/205.206 [3]: https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.aces.illinoi... [4]: https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp/pdpdata

MaiLabs also made a video[1] specifically about glyphosate and why some bodies rule it as carcinogen and others don't, she's sponsored by Funk similar to Kurzgesagt and it's quite informative. She searched trhough quite a few sources [2] to evaluate the situation and it's really all about the IARC including a non-independent study vs all the other bodies not doing that (the IARC is literally the only body that said glyphosate is cancer).

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K0TAphTfaI, 2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_CgI5-bYC6dNnUvAMQUHlHjp...

Organic is a marketing term created by organic companies. Growing things without herbicides and pesticides is very difficult.

No, that's not true, it's the strongest USDA mandated and certified food standard available in the USA. The USA standard is far weaker than EU's organic standard, which is weaker than the UK's, but it is still the strongest defined standard in the US market.

Not only do those standards limit pesticides, they restrict frequency and amount of what is permissible. The European standards have additional rules around animal welfare (I'm less sure about the US here) - which make organic the most animal friendly way of buying food, regardless of whether or not you care about organic's aims or use of pesticides.

The problem is that the term "organic" in the US includes pesticides that are... less healthy than normal ones.

They are organic pesticides, those are after all okay, but they are more generica than targeted pesticides and tend to be worse for the environment and the human body (Kurzgesagt has a very good video on that).

Some pesticides that are banned by the organics label are actually pretty terrible for humans and the environment.

And some pesticides allowed by the organics label are actually pretty terrible for the huamns and the environment.

I agree that the USDA created an official designation. As you said, "organics" still use pesticides, but the recommendations for limitations and selection are not all based on science.

If they were, then I would expect that GMO/GEO foods wouldn't be barred as they have the potential to not only help address malnutrition, but also reduce water usage and tillage.

http://www.goldenrice.org/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03231-x

Sorry, I was speaking only of US standards as those are the only ones with which I'm even remotely familiar.

https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-standards

Overall point: there is a strong naturalistic bias with the term organic. Natural = good, GMO = bad. This is unproven and in some cases counter to reality. This is why I refer to it as a marketing term.

> Growing things without herbicides and pesticides is very difficult.

And not what organic aspires to, anyway, it just involves a fairly arbitrary set of exclusions as to which pesticides are used, which exclusions have no particular correspondence to either human health or environmental sustainability.

“Organic” is largely marketing, but what the marketing appeals to is woo to start with.

It’s more than marketing in the sense that certain pesticides are excluded for their toxicity.

That said, the list of allowable, synthetic organic pesticides is pretty damn long.[1]

[1] http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f10...

>certain pesticides are excluded for their toxicity.

They're not excluded for their toxicity. The exclusions come as a result of a limited list of chemicals used in organic agriculture.

I think we’re saying the same thing.

A limited list of chemicals is used in organic farming. How did they limit the list? By removing the more toxic pesticides.

I don't have an opinion for or against use of glyphosate with "organic" food and share the general cynicism of the thread about the "organic" label.

But this site has a strong position on glyphosate (in accepting the premise that it is a "probable human carcinogen"), which is worth staying aware of. That position is probably totally reasonable for their audience, but keep in mind that it's automatically being recontextualized by being posted on HN.

So on this site, it's worth keeping in mind that glyphosate's status as a human health bogeyman is, at least, debatable. There is a huge amount of controversy over the manner in which IARC came to its conclusion, other health agencies have sharply disagreed with it, and, perhaps most importantly for this article, the exposure scenarios connecting cancer risk to glyphosate probably aren't relevant to food consumers.

Since part of the point of glyphosate is to reduce application of stronger herbicides that are more biologically active in humans, and those herbicides are generally neither known by name to consumers nor banned from agriculture, it's worth splitting hairs here.

> Since part of the point of glyphosate is to reduce application of stronger herbicides that are more biologically active in humans, and those herbicides are generally neither known by name to consumers nor banned from agriculture, it's worth splitting hairs here.

I am operating completely from memory here so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this at least partially counteracted by having to use significantly more herbicide to account for its lower efficacy?

The site is not credible. This is not news, it's propaganda. The article doesn't belong here. It's just provocation designed to make amazon affiliate money.

For example, the article says:

> For those of you who don’t know – anything that touches the soil eventually gets taken up by the plant. It becomes apart of the plants tissues and DNA. It is unavoidable.

The point of hydroponic farming is the plants don't touch the soil. They don't take anything out of the soil at all. Glyphosate does not become part of a plant's DNA.

Edit: Down votes why?

It's an anti-vax website for crying out loud:

https://livelovefruit.com/still-vaccinating-25-questions-for...

There is no doubt that it's a carcinogen, just some questions about how strongly and at what kinds of exposure.

IARC has an easier decision than most national regulators as they only look at the science. National regulators have to balance the science with the political/economic reality that glyphosate plays. Some countries have nonetheless chosen to prohibit it's use, others not.

So the question is not at all whether it's a carcinogen, rather it's this: Should we prohibit it's use or certain especially dangerous use cases, given that much of Western agriculture has become dependent on it?

On the flipside, the WHO, FAOJC and ECHA (as well as the canadian, australian and german safety bodies) didn't find there to be sufficient evidence that Glyphosate is a carcinogen or dangerous in the dosages you'll be exposed to.

The IARC is actually the only international scientific organization that has actually classed glyphosate as carcinogen (based on including a few studies that the other bodies do not include to avoid bias).

Of course, eating Glyphosate isn't exactly healthy, it's a pesticide after all and not quite exactly designed to be consumed by anything but it's all about the dosage.

The article has an update at the top that references this USDA memo [1] that summarizes the regulation. I'm not sure how much of the article is invalid as a result, but it seems to make claims that are directly refuted by the memo dated 6 months before the article was published.

[1]: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/2019-Cert...

Yeah. It certainly appears to invalidate the entire article.

> NOP argues that because glyphosate does not “touch” the plants being certified, it is technically still “organic.” If that’s not the craziest assumption I’ve heard in regards to organic food production, I don’t know what is. For those of you who don’t know – anything that touches the soil eventually gets taken up by the plant. It becomes apart of the plants tissues and DNA. It is unavoidable.

IIUC, they’re spraying the ground with glyphosate to clear it, then after some time period of it dissipating, planting atop the soil but not applying the herbicide again during the crops growing phase.

If the plants being grown are not glyphosate resistant (e.g. “roundup ready”) and there’s a non-trivial level of it remaining in the soil, wouldn’t that kill the crops? Reversing that, are there any significant levels in the ground or absorbed by the plants at that point? Seems like it’s a “no”.

> If the plants being grown are not glyphosate resistant (e.g. “roundup ready”) and there’s a non-trivial level of it remaining in the soil, wouldn’t that kill the crops?

No, because hydroponic crops are not planted into the soil.

I totally missed the hydroponic part but now I’m even more confused. If the plants are hydroponic than what are they spraying and why? The land around and under the greenhouse?

That’s how I’m reading it. They spray the ground to clear it and the plants are in a container atop the soil.

If the farmer plants in the soil that was treated, it can’t be considered organic for 3 years (unless the substance that was used is certified for organic crops)

How does it become part of the "DNA"? How does that work?

The only chemicals that will ever "become apart of DNA" are the four chemicals that make it up--anything else is not dioxyribonucleicacid by definiton.

The title is misleading. The Glyphosate is used in the soil BEFORE the greenhouse is built. This prevent weeds to break the greenhouse plastics. But is not administered to the final product that goes to the final consumer.

Where do the potatos grow? Same soil isnt it? Isnt this a childish way to argue about it?

No... these are hydroponic, meaning they are grown without soil.

Organic certifiers have differing standards. Given the continued demand for organic — even Walmart is bullish on it these days — unscrupulous certifiers like the USDA will cut corners. In response, great certifiers like CCOF (https://ccof.org/) and Oregon Tilth (https://tilth.org/), which would never allow the use of glyphosate, will seek to distinguish themselves from the pack.

Organic has always been a marketing gimmick to help sell generic food products. If it were actually about pesticide-free farming it would be called "pesticide-free" not "organic."

It is a pretty stupid term, moreso if you think about it from the mindset of organic chemistry...

The specific bit where it is allowed on hydroponic farms:

> glyphosate (an incredibly toxic herbicide that is absolutely prohibited on organic farms) is being sprayed on fields prior to constructing hydroponic greenhouses awaiting organic certification. This is done to remove weeds from the greenhouses.

By the way, glyphosate is not at all "incredibly toxic". Its toxicity, the debatable claim about causing cancer set aside since that is not about toxicity, is well below that of coffee. It would be safe to ingest larger amounts of glyphosate, and people actually have done that.

I don't understand this at all:

Why would you need kill weeds (unwanted plants) if you are growing your plants hydrophonically?

What am I missing?

Glyphosate disrupts a key biochemical pathway in most plants and bacteria and probably some other lifeforms I don't know about. Hydroponic grow-ops can still deal with weeds, one I know about is duckweed, an incredibly invasive water plant.

So I am a little confused here. My understanding of hydroponics, a method which uses an inert medium for the root system to grow in and is often a relatively closed system, aquaponics, also a pretty closed system which uses water for the roots to grow in, and aeroponics, a relatively closed system which uses a fine mist for the root system, have pretty much zero interaction with the soil which is outside of the system.

What is stated is that

>glyphosate...is being sprayed on fields prior to constructing hydroponic greenhouses awaiting organic certification. This is done to remove weeds from the greenhouses.

>The way this use of herbicide is incorporated into “organic” certification is to...level a field, compact it..., wait...until the weeds...have germinated. And then spray it with an herbicide. They are doing this in California and Florida. The weeds...can grow straight through the black plastic.

What I take away is that the herbicide is being sprayed as part of construction on the ground and then it is covered. My guess is that this black plastic is used as a weed block and or helps isolate the outside environment.

>the NOP continues to assert that hydroponic, aquaponic, and aeroponic production is allowed (1). NOP argues that because glyphosate does not “touch” the plants being certified, it is technically still “organic.

Typically in a hydroponic setup you’re growing the root system in a container filled with a nutrient solution which is not in contact with the soil so it seems reasonable to assume the plant will not be in contact with the soil. Except for maybe the air, the inputs to the plant should also be isolated from the soil. At least that is my understanding. Please feel free to correct any errors here.

So from a strictly certification standpoint I can understand why the fruit would remain organic. However it does seem to violate the intent I assume most people buy organic products for.

Personally I’m not sure where I stand on glyphosates at the moment but given language like this in the article...

>Using common sense, this would rightfully deem any product non-organic – but this doesn’t seem to be the case for hydroponics

>Besides the fact that it is obvious that organics cannot and should not be sprayed with glyphosate, the NOP continues to assert that...

>If that’s not the craziest assumption I’ve heard in regards to organic food production, I don’t know what is...

I feel like some of this needs to be balanced out and we approach this with our eyes fully open.

Some relevant resources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaponics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroponics

This article makes zero sense. It's about hydroponics - growing plants in water, without soil. But it's complaining about spraying the ground that a greenhouse is built on top of.

Am I missing something, or is glyphosate going into the ground, and the plants are never touching the ground?

Pretty much, that's how I read it too. This has nothing to do with glyphosate being on the hydroponic crops.

It says it right there in the article:

> This is all because the USDA does not consider spraying toxic herbicides like glyphosate on the soil immediately prior to inspection to be a disqualifier for organic certification.

> According to Jennifer, because the plant itself is not being exposed to prohibited substances like glyphosate, spraying the ground with herbicides the week before organic certification is 100% legal.

lol the update completely invalidates the clickbait premise of this extremist article. I can't imagine why it's being upvoted.

Round-Up is not really my idea of Organic.

The organic label was coopted years ago and has meant very little for years.

The buried lede here is that "organic", as applied to food is itself a meaningless concept. It's just an ersatz religious practice. What assurance is there that no glyphosate particles have found their way onto your artisanal apple grown in zebu manure?

The only way to know for sure is to plant your own garden. Although when you've had the Japanese beetles or cutworm or potato bugs ravage your harvest, considerations about being 100% organic lose some of their weight and it takes a lot of commitment not to break out the rotenone or Sevin.

>The only way to know for sure is to plant your own garden.

You still don't know in that case. It is not a question of trust, or the strictness of your standards. The problem is, more fundamentally, conceptual.

> The only way to know for sure is to plant your own garden

Presuming you test your soil, first. Leaded paint and leaded gasoline have heavily contaminated large parts of residential land, especially those parts closest to buildings.

Unlike with commercial produce where only a particular plant here or there may have come from a contaminated patch of land, if your garden is contaminated you're being exposed regularly.

Similarly, even if all the land around you is pristine, who knows what a previous owner may have done at any particular spot. Maybe someone once stacked a dozen, leaky lead-acid batteries where you want to plant your garden. It's kind of unthinkable for many people today (if only because we're not a fix-it yourself society much anymore), but people regularly did dumb stuff like that years ago, and some still do today.

And who is to say that organic carrot you're eating is any better for you. From a pesticide standpoint, almost all of the pesticides we eat (by weight) are natural and possible carcinogens. [1] A person's synthetic pesticide exposure is dwarfed by the natural pesticide chemicals the plants produce themselves (except for farm workers). Dose makes the poison--at the small levels we intake, with normal handling, risk is very low for both categories.

(And don't get me on my soapbox about the villification of glyphosate--it's a shame).

[1] Dietary pesticides, 99.99% all natural: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2217210/

I'll climb on the soapbox. Glyphosate is great stuff. Good on sandwiches too. Hell, even Patrick Moore[1] does shots[2] of the stuff and he's almost perfect.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant)

2. https://time.com/3761053/monsanto-weed-killer-drink-patrick-...

Edit: original comment was abridged by the benevolence of Verizon and their warm wireless affection for rural vermin. Rather than rewrite it, I'll capitulate and admire it as 'is'.

The not drinking glyphosate thing is way overblown. The best data we have says that eating Crayolas is safe. Young children do it all the time. They're non-toxic by design. That doesn't mean that I'm going to munch down a boxful if asked to. It isn't food.

OF COURSE he didn't drink it. Again, it isn't food.

Then consider allowing your children to merely gargle with glyphosate, and remove their crayon-eating privileges if they insist on persevering to digestive phases.

The considered safe exposure is about one milligram per kilogram bodyweight, so your children should be fine gargling on about 20 to 50 milligrams of the stuff without issue (somewhere after that you reach norminal toxicity where it'll just kill you normally like 99.999% of the pesticides out there).

Some of us who purchase organic foods don't care about the impact on the food, but rather on the farm ecosystem. Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers impact insect popuations, wash into rivers, and so on. It's nice to have an option to vote with our dollars in favour of more sustainable practices, even if the food isn't any healthier or tastier to eat.

Organic foods are normally grown with organic pesticides that still harm the environment, but since the pesticides aren't synthetic, the food still keeps the organic label.

Organic herbicides and pesticides tend to be less effective, as well, thus requiring more frequent application using large farm equipment, belching exhaust and compacting the soil.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com