Vinegar. Sticky traps. Soaps. Diatomaceous earth. Targeted bacteria. And so on.
I'm not sure these are in the same league.
I'm not sure these are in the same league.
... like the ones you decided to omit? (selected for maximum chemical-sounding scare effect)
>Copper: Copper hydroxide, copper oxide, copper oxychloride
>Lime sulfer: Including calcium polysulfide
>Hydrogen peroxide
>Peracetic acid
>Streptomycin sulfate and tetracycline
Are they the same as glysophate or whatever because they're both chemical-sounding? Not necessarily. However, there's certainly enough uncertainty that you can't blanket state that organic pesticides are wholesome substances like "Vinegar. Sticky traps. Soaps. Diatomaceous earth. Targeted bacteria", and non-organic pesticides aren't in the same "league" entirely.
>Organic herbicides and pesticides are chosen specifically such that they don't contaminate the product (and thus products of the product). Nowhere in my comment did I claim otherwise.
Contaminate with what? Organic herbicides and pesticides contain the same constituent chemicals as their conventional counterparts. They have to, otherwise they wouldn't work. The organic variety contain more ballast, however, which requires additional application to meet the efficiency of the conventional variety.
If you want to give some specific example, go ahead, but as is the statement is nonsensical.
You can kill insects and pests with a neurochemical. Or you can put sharp rocks (diatomaceous earth) and traps to do the same, albeit with more labor and less efficacy. Are you sincerely arguing that these must be the same? That an organic burger has rat traps in it?
This same insincere argument appears in every discussion about organic practices. A sort of hand wavy "it's all the same". No, it isn't all the same. Farming has been pushed to the level of extraordinary efficiency -- as mentioned, conventional farms are basically gross factories, having nothing to do with "nature" -- and to do this the practice is massive applications of pretty nasty chemicals. Not many organic farms operate in such a manner.
What on Earth are you talking about?
>having nothing to do with "nature"
What does this mean? What, specifically, is the difference between conventional agriculture and organic with respect to your appeal to "nature"?
>pretty nasty chemicals.
What chemicals are you referring to here?
>Not many organic farms operate in such a manner.
Are you sure about that? How so?
This is absolutely false. And such an assertion, while dismissing my comments by saying everything is made of stardust, is indeed a reply in bad faith.
Care to tell us the chemical composition of modern pesticides from say... Monsanto?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/29/pesticides-e...
> In a landmark ruling in August last year, Monsanto was found liable for causing a school groundskeeper’s cancer through exposure to Roundup, the company’s leading pesticide. Earlier this month, in a later case, Monsanto was ordered to pay more than $2bn to a couple that got cancer after using its weedkiller. Roundup, a glyphosate-based, organophosphate weedkiller, is one of, if not the most widely-used pesticides in the world. A formal review of glyphosate by the EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) released this month found some statistically significant links to certain cancers, such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.