"pesticides put thousands of farmworkers and their families at risk of serious illness every year"

Is this why my Republican neighbors insist on deporting these 'illegal' poisoned farmworkers and their children?

Notice they say "farm workers" because farm families no longer live on farms. They say these pesticides are harmfull but notice they don't mention how dogs were force fed them, rabbits had it sprayed in thier eyes, and hundreds of other tests including human children to determine just how harmfull. These poisons support an industry that kills and disables thousands of people. Occupational hazards include some nasty forms of cancer and dementia.

And we end up eating the poison-laced produce. Cool! Wouldn't water boarding with a different substance be nice!

And what about those pests the bees?

The newswire article is much better:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0407-09.htm

Anyone know what group is doing the suing? The atricle just calls them "Environmental and farmworker advocates". Just wanting to know if this is a reputable group or the usual suspects.

I wonder if the pesticides in our food and environment is the culprit causing the rise in Autism? After the hoo ha about mercury in shots, which Dr.s have more or less said is not true (personally I think there might be something to it), we need to look at the causes of the rising percentage of Autistic children. I have always thought it was a combination of factors, the excess of chemicals in our environment and that the shot with mercury was sort of the last straw. The little bodies of young children just couldn't take any more.

Maybe we need to lobby Congress (riiiigghht) to adapt EU chemical prohibitions rather than relying on our gutted corporate enablers (FDA & EPA)

For further news of FDA and EPA malfeisance in today's NYT

Hermaphrodite Frogs Found in Suburban Ponds

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08frog.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

Mr. obvious - NOT, "Plaintiffs include the United Farm Workers, the Teamsters, Pesticide Action Network North America, Beyond Pesticides and the Natural Resources
Defense Council." from the article itself.

curmudgeon99 - Thank you! - I should read more carefully.

poison for profit. cool!

Treefrog is right, the newswire article is much more informative.These are mostly Organaphosphates highly toxic with a long residual toxicity.As a pesticide applicator one has to have thier background Cholinesterase levels tested periodically if you have ever handled this stuff.Even with the best safety gear you risk endrocrine,nervous system,sexual and chromosome damage.
It is a travesty that these compounds are even listed for food and tobbacco crops.
peas out (organic)

I emailed my list this article and the original treefrog pointed out, w/the notation, this one's on treefrog to my whole list. Yes, thanks, treefrog.

How can these poisoners sleep at night. Are they so in love w/their quarterly profits and divorced from the lives of their fellow human beings (not to mention the animals they torture/kill?) They may be biologically alive, but they are spiritually dead.

Actually, I am surprised Bu$h the inferior didn't authorize spraying the workers rather than just the food.

Edit didn't work. These profiteering poisioners are worse than robots.

DIXIE: Years ago doctors and families in Puerto Rico became alarmed that young boys were developing breasts. What turned out to be the culprit was a particular estrogen-mimicking (I believe it was) hormone added to chicken feed.

The autism rates are astounding. Thankfully some children outgrow the symptoms, but a society that flagrantly throws poisons into its water, air and soil systems can hardly boast any responsible approach to public health. Like you said, the little ones, pumped up with the idiot shots (most of these diseases no longer exist, and there's a good case to be made that SANITATION is what brought these illnesses to a halt) added to hormones in their milk & meat, additives in their for-shelf-life snacks, and irradiation of other items, the entire basis for NATURE and NURTURE is being removed from the biological equation.

Yep, great example of what the EPA is really all about. Rubber-stamping whatever the industry wants. 62,000 chemicals grandfathered into TSCA, tens of thousands approved since then. The EPA has not banned a single chemical in 17 years under TSCA. And under FIFRA, it permits withholding data on "inerts" which can be as toxic or more toxic than the "active ingredients." All in the name of "Trade Secrets."

The EPA is a complete and utter joke. We would be much better off to completely dissolve the agency and start over from scratch. Just look at what the EU is doing with REACH to see how deluded and far off-base the EPA is. We are, and will be the dumping ground of the world until the people start demanding changes.

And mr. obvious, exactly who would be the usual suspects arguing against pesticide use? I'm curious, since you seem to have the view that there are no bad pesticides, having argued in the last few weeks that all pesticides are safe as long as used per the label instructions.

Mr Obvious

Who are "the usual suspects" you mention is your earlier post?

Who do you consider not a reputable group?

Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and Center for Science in the Public Interest are three organizations that I have seen manipulate data to deceive the public. There are certainly pesticides that have adverse effects, and which need to be more thouroughly investigated. However, manipulation of data to reach a preconceived conclusion is criminal, whether done by industry or activist groups. I have no information about the 4 pesticides in the article, but would like to see the actual evidence. When I looked into the milk issue with cows treated with synthetic hormones, the issue became clear. Available data demonstrates that such milk is as safe as any other milk. It also became clear that the activist groups were manipulating data and telling half truths to instill fear in the ignorant. Big surprise... P.S. I consider peer-reviewed scientific papers and education sites (.edu) a good place to start reaesrching an issue. There is at least some accountability within these sources.

The power of brainwashing becomes ever more evident as people continue to purchase poison products in pretty packages. The thought of personal self interest is cast aside with an unholy trust in the U.S. Government to protect it's people. Parents and children are exposed to these chemicals daily with careless abandon and yet most parents do nothing to stop it. The Corporate media, by not exposing these dangers, has become a willing participant. An occasional story in a newspaper is not an expose. Organized abuse of the American People for profit is becoming ever more widespread. Even those who we elect to protect the people are neutralized by money and lobbying. Corruption has become self sustaining and the prospects for change at the federal level are remote. The building of the local alternative green economy has become a necessary exercise in survival for the few who are capable of comprehending it. Those who do comprehend it and have severely limited their consumption of Corporate products and services are having an impact on the economy beyond their numbers given the current economic climate. The value of Common Dreams in collecting and presenting this important information cannot be underestimated. We are a community of people determined to build a new communitarian vision dedicated to supplanting the 20th Century idea of centralized corporate domination with decentralized (local) participatory lifeways. Safe food is fundamental.

Mr Obvious

As a supporter of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Organic Consumers Association I would hate to know which educational web sites you visit to glean your data on pesticides, GM crops and rBST milk from.

I rely on the Union of Concerned Scientists, Institute of Sceince in Society and Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST).

I recommend visiting those web sites for reliable unbiased information.

Read Michael Pollan's latest book (I think it's the latest) In Defense Of Food. Basically it boils down to this: Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much.

Don't eat food with more than 5 ingredients.

Shop farmers markets, grow your own, if you can't do those, buy from the periphery of the grocery stores and skip the middle.

If it's in a package or box, it's processed to some degree.

Not everyone has access to organic food, but eating actual FOOD and PLANTS or animals fed on plants and not just seeds, will go a long way to making everyone healthier which translates to less demand for land drowning in pesticides.

Recycle 1 - In general I agree with your dietary recommendations. However, I cannot support organic agriculture as a general farming practice. It yields lower requiring more land in agriculture and less in natural habitat. It also requires replacing synthetic fertilizer with animal waste, which encourages animal production. Animal production (especially organic animal production) destroys more natural habitat and is one of the major agricultural contributors to greenhouse gasses. High intensity farming distroys less land leaving more in a natural state. Our high-intensity vegetable operation supports our conversion of 90% of our farm back to natural habitat. The benefits are clear in the form of diverse wildlife. If you are turning up sod with low habitat value in your yard and using well-composted dog doo then no harm done (but be careful with the dog doo - it can contain human pathogens).

andy - http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1999/01/01-25-99tdc/01-25-99dnews-7.asp

Mr. Obvious-it would take some strong arguments to convince me that we could actually turn all farming to organic-the beef we get from our local farmer is not "true" organic beef because the farmer does spot treat some of his feed with herbicides when problems arise (generally once every few years or just one area). I'm more in the buy local, eat in season group than the buy only organic. I do not think that buying organic produce from Mexico (I'm in Wisconsin) is a sustainable practice.

Our garden is intensive square foot gardening that we fertilize with finished compost (no doggy doo here). It is not recommended that animal waste be used on any food product in the family garden unless it is "finished" which you can tell from the odor-if it has one, it's not done!

DOOM & GLOOM: Your most inspiring post ever! Great job! (I totally agree)

CULICOMORPHA: Thank you for sharing the statistics on this mess. Notice the airlines are cutting back on flights, as money's bottom line can so quickly lead to security problems of the mechanical sort. To the extent all things intended to be regulated to maintain a balance between profit and the public interest have ceased to be, the quality of life for the vast majority becomes compromised.

Mr Obvious

Research shows that in Kenya (Africa) farmers have increased yields 100% using organic methods to combat insect and weed pests, reduce soil erosion, naturally increase the soil fertility without adding animal manure, and help retain moisture in the soil.

I can also dig up research to show that organic agriculture uses less fossil fuels, i.e fewer big tractors and no crude oil for synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. One figure I saw suggests organic agriculute uses 50% less fossil fuels.

I suggest "Google" "CAN ORGANIC AGRICULTURE FEED THE WORLD"

I have been gardening "organically" for close to 40 years and supporting organizations like Greenpeace for as long. For those of us in the know (and especailly those who aren't) regarding organic/sustainable ag, it is not necessarily about animal manure.

I encourage all to go to the Pesticide Action Network's web site www.panna.org and start researching the chemicals we have in our atmosphere and on our food and in our water. They are anything but benign.

If you need some clarity about growing food, any of the Rodale books on gardening without chemicals would be a good start.

Science, especially government sanctioned science has been a tool of corruption for many years and until humanity is above their own weaknesses it will not be a reliable barometer for assessing truth. Especially where money is involved.

From Vandana Shiva......the majority of the hungry in the world are rural people. They could be growing their own food if the food system hadn't been converted into a market for sales of seeds and agrochemicals. Three billion people on this planet are being denied their right to healthy, safe, nutritious food because agribusiness has turned food into a place for highest returns on profits. The entire food system is serving corporations and not people. Chemical agriculture is a theft from nature and a theft from the poor. We need to reclaim the food system.

Start now where you are able.

Believe want you want and buy organic, free-range, or kosher if it makes you happy. The reality of needing to feed the world will limit these practices to serve the privilaged that can afford trendy/religion-based food. Greenpeace has excellent spin doctors and they have a great record of convincing the ignorant to send them money. It must be nice to be able to just rely on fiction with no need for evidence when making arguments. Just Google your favorite myth and see all the web sites that support it. If you believe in alien abductions, there are plenty of others that will indulge you. Just press a couple keys on your computer and its all true.

Mr Obvious

Provide data that organic food will only feed the privilaged few.

And I will provide solid information of millions of farmers practicing the opposite.

Keep in mind that research shows that even in the USA, farms of less than 25 acres produce more per acre than large scale industial chemical farms.

Provide evidence that Greenpeace have excellent spin doctors, and I will provide evidence that they have the backing of excellent scientists.

I however come up against ag-biotech and ag-chemical spin doctors on a regular basis.

4000 experts cannot be wrong in rejecting GM crops to help eliminate starvation in the developing world.

Dandy Andy - Here you go

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/hypocrisy.html

Mr Obvious

I have spent ten years laughing at Ag-bioworlds junk science and spin.

It is run by Dr CS Prakash. For a profile on him by GM Watch visit:
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=106

Mr Obvious, the more you blog the less convincing you become.

For a full profile of the Biotech Brigade and their spin doctors and organisations visit
http://www.gmwatch.org/

Andy - You make my point very well. None of these .org sites are the place to hang your hat. Show me the peer-reviewed papers that make you points otherwise its just dueling web sites. Show me any new technology endorsed by gmwatch? They make their money by selling fear.

Selling fear? It is a fovorite tactic of the biotech industy to sell fear. Claiming we cannot feed the world without GM crops, but that has been rejected by 4000 experts of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) http://www.agassessment.org/ They will give you all the peer reviewed papers you need. Contact them.

OOPs- Pity you have a thing about org. sites. I guess you will never know all the valuable information contained on those sites then. But keep an open mind, remember, that is critical.

I would be just as interested in knowing WHO produces these.

gin April 8th, 2008 12:55 pm

And what about those pests the bees?

Collateral damage

Andy - We can feed the world many times over with what we do right now if we did not produce so many animals/livestock and food was distributed properly. My point is that it is more environmentally freindly to produce this food on as few acres as possible. The IAASTD dribble about GM crops driving down prices so samll farmers can't compete is insane. The implication is that we should keep agriculture inefficient as a subsidy for small farmers. This is just plain nuts. How can you buy into this stuff?

randolfski - By the way our high-intensity vegetable operation is pollinated just fine by native bees and does not rely on introduced European honey bees. We use pesticides properly which is quite compatible with insect pollinators.

Mr Obvious

Peer reviewed eliminates anyone else with an opinion including consumers (victims) or competitors (organic farmers and navtive species). There is no way that high intensity farming does not change and exhaust the local ecology, nor does it factor in pollultion. Maybe you should explain what you mean by "high intensity" farming.
Otherwise, start looking for a good careprovider when you start forgetting how to dress yourself.

Treefrog - I define high intensity as being able to restore 90% of our farm to natural habitat including building a pond, 3 wetlands and a small praerie. Maybe pesticides explain my dimentia - what's your excuse?

Mr. Obvious

I was questioning your farming methods? News flash, a constructed pond, wetlands, and praire are not natural.

Mr. Obvious

When you use toxic chemicals you need to include the longterm effects. Actually this should have been done before widespread use. There is hardly a place on earth that could be used for a control group.

Organic will put them out of business.

ezeflyer - We compete head to head with the organic vegetable producers at the famers market. We easily sell more than ten times all of them put together. Why? Because we produce high-quality produce which we actually sell for more than the organic growers now that we have such a great following. The organic growers do get a little testy when they go home with so much of what they bring, and we go home with a bunch of empty boxes. Bring on the organic growers and lets see if they can compete. Most of what they sell looks like what they fertilize with - full of "natural" toxins/carcinogens from fungal infections and insect damage. Yum Yum!

Treefrog - Ponds and restored wetlands represent restortion of wildlife habitat. I am not sure what you want to call "natural". Praires are mostly thought to have been created by the burning practices of native americans, so I am sure they are just a little more "natural" than those pesky honey bees introduced by the europeans.

Mr. Obvious

I guess it is a matter of perspective...Your linear sight only sees what you have been taught to see...you contantly avoid looking at the possibility you might be wrong. Did you see Earthlings?

Natural is when nature restores it's own purpose and function. Human restored wetlands are mostly disfunctional.

Treefrog - I cannot argue that many wetland resorations do not function properly. Mine do. It takes a lot of understanding to make the right changes to restore a wetalnd and get good functioning rapidly. Left alone, many of these poorly functioning wetland will probably eventually function well. You also need to understand where the water comes from and where it goes. The excavator was pretty pushy about what he wanted based on his "extensive experience", but we did things my way. The water is clear, the algae and plants are growing well, and the animals have come. I have a science and farm background, and I read everything. I also know our land which takes a lot of time. I have lived through the droughts and floods, so I know how the water runs.

CHEMICAL PESTICIDE FARMING OUTSELLS ORGANICS. WHY?

We should remember that the demand for oganic produce is growing at 30% per year and the more consumers find out about pesticides and GM crops the less thy want them. Awareness is growing daily.

But organic production constitutes only 3% of global production I hear you say.

Yes, however, organic crops are now commercially grown in 120 countries and represented a $40 billion market in 2006.

Increase the 3% of current organic production exponentially at 30% per year and see what you get? Sooner or later you get to 100% of food sold being organic.

The main reason organics are sucking the hind teat, is for 50 years most the research money has gone into chemical agriculture. Put 50% of the financial backing from chemical agriculture into organic agriculture and see what happens.

Mr Obvious

Then you should also know that the pesticides that you use will impair the functioning of your wetlands. Wetlands can only do so much...

Andy - People used "organic" methods for 10,000 years before the modern age of agriculture. This was a wonderful time if you enjoyed famine and disease. If you want to control human populations, this is a good plan. It worked well over those 10,000 years.

Treefrog - If you dump compost or manure in a wetland it will cause devistation also. This is why we only use short-lived, registered pesticides according to their label, and only when needed, which by the way is not very often, since we have great biological control from the native lands that surround our crop fields.

Mr Obvious

(how about a first name because "Obvious" is definately not what you are)

You have to distingush between modern organic agriculture and the subsistance agriculture that was practiced 10 000 years ago.

Iron age societies regularly use 'slash and burn', no sustainable commercial organic farmer in this day and age could do that.

Research shows that modern organic agriculture produces yields similar to chemical agriculture. Regularly the input costs for organic agriculture are lower than high-tech industrial agriculture, and due to high consumer demand organic food can be sold for more. A win-win situation.

In the developing world, changing to sustainable organic methods compared to age old traditional methods regularly improves yields between 100% and 300%. Want to see the research?

With demand for organics growing at 30% per year globally, I predict organics is the food of the future.

Andy - Some say that organic is up to 3% of total ag now. Wow! It is amazing that farmers are so stupid that they cannot see the obvious advantages of organic practices and instead have adopted that non-productive GM stuff like it is going out of style. I guess supply and demand must not work? Someone with your great wisdom needs to explain to these farmers how stupid they are.