Hacker News Reader

Comment by sigmoid10 | Hacker News Reader

The USDA only permits very specific and highly restricted pest control substances to be used under the "organic" label [1]. So yes, they may still use pesticides, but they are miles away from the usual pesticides used in conventional farming. That stuff will literally kill you if you aren't careful [2]. Beware that there is a lot of misinformation out there targeting anything that dares to go against the conventional farming industry. Of course not all eco hippie alternatives are great, but the usual stuff out there is without question outright terrible in many cases.

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-I/su...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat

View on HN

This is also incorrect.

Many of the "organic approved" substances are also incredibly dangerous. Rotenone is a naturally derived neuro-toxin linked to Parkinson's. Pyrethrin is poison. Then you have a bunch of chlorine and ammonia based elements - maybe not as dangerous in their pure industrial concentrations as paraquat would be but certainly not safe.

(Paraquat is also very unique because it neutralizes itself in contact with soil so it's actually a lot safer in a lot of situations).

Rotenone is not allowed in USDA Organic produce. [1]

Pyrethrin in USDA Organic produce is required to be natural, not synthetic, so don't confuse the two. Also, even natural pyrethrin is a last resort Organic pesticide.

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-I/su...

That is false. Check the USDA source linked above. Rotenone is prohibited according to §205.602.

>Pyrethrin is poison

to whom and at what dose? It's a paralytic nerve agent, so scary!! But mostly to bugs...

"mammals are able to process pyrethrin quickly and have higher body temperatures which prevent pyrethrin from working effectively"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3550062/

This is untrue. For example, Copper Sulfate is a moderately toxic substance used in organic farming and is highly corrosive. It is approximately 5 to 10 times more toxic than Glyphosate (LD50 of ~300 to 790 mg/kg for Copper Sulfate vs. >4,320 mg/kg for Glyphosate.)

https://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/cuso4tech.html https://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/glyphotech.html

These two substances are used at entirely different times, for entirely different purposes, in entirely different manners, with different levels of persistence in both the environment and the final product.

Indeed. Copper sulfate is persistent (it's copper!) and is often used not long before harvest.

Meanwhile, glyphosate is used early before planting to kill off the weeds and so it's naturally degraded (to harmless CO2 and water) by the harvest time.

Sadly that is no longer the case. Glyphosate is sprayed to kill crops for harvest now. It's called pre-harvest desiccation.

You're conflating two different categories of product and their targets.

Copper is a fungicide, which is a category of product that both chemical ("conventional") and organic farmers often need to use for certain types of crops in certain types of climates, including pretty much any fruit. There are chemical fungicides which are more targeted and thus can be "greener" in some ways than copper, but there's also a lot more which are substantially worse.

Whereas RoundUp/glyphosate is an herbicide, which is a category of product that chemical farmers use extensively but organic farmers use rarely to not at all, relying instead on cultural and mechanical means. And what organic herbicides are used rely on contact rather than systemic action.

Funnily enough, both are pretty terrible when used near bodies of water. But chemical agriculture requires a much greater volume begetting much greater runoff.

300mg/kg is still 6 times higher than for Paraquat. So you only confirmed what was said above.

LD50 is a very poor measurement for this kind of stuff though, there are plenty of stuff that can severely harm you on the long term at relatively low doses but will never realistically kill you in the short term no matter how high the dose (asbestos fibers for instance). Many carcinogenic or reprotoxic stuff are like that.

Really sad to see an article like this at the top of HN

The problem is that there's a part that's true (the “organic” label is based in part on “appeal to nature”, allowing certain stuff on the basis that it is natural, which truly isn't a great way of drawing the limit).

So of course, the (often paid) promoters of “YOLO agriculture” will use that as an argument, putting under the rug that the industry they defend is doing bullshit with people's health and the environment.

There ought to be a middle ground, but unfortunately we live in a permanent culture war so there cannot be reasonable discussion about anything, really.

Exactly. The OP article is pure nonsense

The claim in the article is that there's nothing intrinsically safer about the "organic" pesticides. And that just because "organic" labeled pesticides can be found as is in nature doesn't mean they are safer. Many of the "organic" pesticides, copper sulfate, rotenone, and nicicotine sulfate actually require more per unit area farmed while at the same time having a lower LD50 than the other non-organic pesticides.

What do you find is nonsense about this? Did you not read the article and think it was about "pesticides" vs "no pesticides"? It is actually about how the organic label often results in farmers using more pesticides.

> Many of the "organic" pesticides, copper sulfate, rotenone, and nicicotine sulfate

That's highly misleading:

1. Copper sulfate is required to be used such that copper accumulation is limited in the soil. [1]

2. Rotenone [2][3] and nicotine sulfate [3] are not allowed as USDA Organic pesticides.

Really, superkuh, for a user like you, your comment is embarrassing.

[1] https://pnwhandbooks.org/plantdisease/pesticide-articles/mat...

[2] https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/national-organic-...

[3] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-I/su...

"Organic means better" is the embarrassing and misleading talking point here though, not being against having toxic chemicals in our food sold as "organic". I don't want added copper compounds and residue in my food, and copper sulfate used in organic farming empirically does that.

"The most frequently quantified [organic] pesticide was copper." https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2015/5570...

This doesn't say that conventional cultures are better on that front.

Your own reference says:

> Analysis of these articles revealed no significant difference in ..., zinc, and copper.

> restrictions limit the use of copper salts.

I see a theoretical risk but not a practical problem here. At best you've identified a place where the regulations might need tightening.

That https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-I/su... specifically does not allow "(f) Rotenone (CAS # 83-79-4)" and "nicotine sulfate" is a huge red flag. I guess the article writer might be talking of non-US jurisdictions but it does undercut my belief in their statements.

Given these two really bad, even disengenuous, examples the true bit about the copper sulfate use is probably misleading too. I wouldn't say it's embarassing not to know this off the top of my head but I do appreciate that I won't embarass myself in the future by repeating the falsehoods (re: USDA regs). Thanks.

I do wonder how this works with a large amount of the produce I buy in the USA being grown in other countries though.

Except those "organic pesticide" are largely NOT used in modern organic farming, and when they are, they're used at a much lower level than "conventional pesticides"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com