Subject: Re: Pesticides in Organic Farming
From: Brian Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 May 94 22:06 PDT
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture

/* On May 20, 1994 [email-masked] in igc:alt.sustainabl wrote*/
/* ---------- "Pesticides in Organic Farming" ---------- */

> Contrary to what most people believe, "organic" does *not* automatically mean
> "pesticide-free" or "chemical-free".  

As someone who helps to certify organic production claims, I may not be in a
position to say what most people think, but I can tell you what we tell the 
public. I want to say that we do not say that organic automatically means
"pesticide-free" and do not condone statements by those who do. 

> In fact, under the laws of most states, organic farmers are allowed to use a 
> wide variety of chemical sprays and powders on their crops.

Actually, compared to the hundreds that conventional farmers have at 
their disposal, organic farmers have relatively narrow choices.

> So what *does* organic mean?  It means that these pesticides, if used, must 
> be derived from natural sources, not synthetically manufactured.  Also, these
> pesticides must be applied using equipment that has not been used to apply 
> any synthetic materials for the past three years, and the land being planted 
> cannot have been treated with synthetic materials for that period either.  

I'll go you one better and say that some synthetically manufactured 
pesticides, such as insecticidal soap, for example, are allowed in 
organic production as well. 

> Most organic farmers (and even some conventional farmers, too) employ mechanical
> and cultural tools to help control pests.   These include insect traps, careful
> crop selection (there are a growing number of disease-resistant varieties), and
> biological controls (such as predator insects and beneficial microorganisms).
> 
> ORGANIC PRODUCE AND PERSONAL HEALTH
> 
> When you test synthetic chemicals for their ability to cause cancer, you find
> that about half of them are carcinogenic.
> 
> Until recently, nobody bothered to look at natural chemicals (such as organic
> pesticides), because it was assumed that they posed little risk.  But when the
> studies were done, the results were somewhat shocking:  you find that about half
> of the natural chemicals studied are carcinogenic as well.
> 
> This is a case where everyone (consumers, farmers, researchers) made the same,
> dangerous mistake.  We assumed that "natural" chemicals were automatically
> better and safer than synthetic materials, and we were wrong. It's important
> that we be more prudent in our acceptance of "natural" as being innocuous and
> harmless.

No, but we did assume that natural carcinogens are already there, and 
that there isn't a heck of a lot we can do about them. Also, organic 
farming relies heavily on the principle that what comes from nature is 
more readily assimilated by natural systems, with a heavy reliance on 
relatively insoluble sources of naturally-occurring nutrients. Remember,
organic farming is a claim made about a production system. It is not a
food safety claim. While there are data that supports that organic food
is significantly less likely to have pesticides residues of any kind,
we are careful to not make food safety claims, even some claims that we 
think we can legitimately make.

> 
> 
> ORGANIC PESTICIDES VERSUS SYNTHETIC PESTICIDES
> 
> Clearly, the less we impact our environment, the better off we all are.  Organic
> farming practices have greatly advanced the use of non-chemical means to control
> pests, as mentioned earlier.
> 
> Unfortunately, these non-chemical methods do not always provide enough
> protection, and it's necessary to use chemical pesticides.  How do organic
> pesticides compare with conventional pesticides?
> 
>  A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture 
>  versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan.  Rotenone and pyrethrin are two 
>  common organic pesticides;  imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic 
> pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, 
> and other traits that minimize unwanted effects).  It was found that up to 7 
> applications of the rotenone-pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the 
> level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.

I don't have the study that compared rotenone/pyrethrin with imidan, but I do have
a study that compared conventional, IPM and organic apples. The IPM program was
based on Sevin, not imidan. 

The Kovach study is seriously flawed in many ways, and leads to erroneous
conclusions. The model has many hidden assumptions by the way the researchers
selectively include and exclude characteristics of pesticides. The real 
sophistry of the EIQ is that it takes the researchers' value judgements 
about what environmental considerations are the greatest concern, and portrays
them as impartial "scientific" data. Many of their indices are their "expert" 
opinion given numeric grades between 1 and 5. While I'm not saying they set 
those up to make organic look relatively bad or IPM look relatively good, I
could get a team of "experts" who could come up with pseudoscientific numbers 
that would indicate the opposite of their results. What would that mean? 

Why don't you mention how the weights were constructed? By implication, some
environmental or health considerations were given zero weight. For example, the
Kovach team apparently didn't take into account chronic neurotoxicity. Cancer 
is not the only chronic health effect caused by pesticides. Imidan may not be a
carcinogen, but what about its neurotoxicity? It is an organophosphate and a
cholinesterase inhibitor. Its not that hard to find people who have faced repeated
occupational exposure to organophosphates whose nerves are shot to hell. The
Kovach study didn't consider that worth putting in their index. It fails to 
cite their source of data on the organic program. Such alternatives as
trapping, pheromone confusion, beneficial habitat enhancement and 
beneficial release are not mentioned for either the IPM or the organic 
programs. Without those non-chemical components, what is IPM to 
them--Integrated Pesticide Management? 

> It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really
> better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when
> rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.

Who is doing 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin when they could do 2
applications of imidan? Where did you (they) get the data to support that 
claim? Those who substitute a synthetic pesticide treadmill for a natural 
pesticide treadmill don't last for long, and usually don't make it through 
the three years of transition. In the CCOF program, rotenone and pyrethrum
application is restricted. In particular, growers can't use rotenone near 
waterways and be certified organic. 

Also, you seem to imply rotenone and/or pyrethrum are known carcinogens. 
Neither have been proven carcinogens. While there are some data gaps, you 
can't say that because there are data gaps and because they are natural, and
because natural carcinogens exist, those compounds are therefore carcinogenic.
Actually, those two compounds have relatively few data gaps. Because their use
pre-dates most synthetic pesticides, we have more experience, under more
circumstances, with those materials.

If they posed clear environmental or human health problems, their use in 
organic production would be discontinued. You might discount that assertion, 
but let me point out that CCOF, many other certifiers, and the proposed Federal
regulations for organic roduction from USDA all prohibit nicotine, because it 
is a known carcinogen, even though it is naturally derived. Yes, it's still 
legal in many states to use in organic production, but that doesn't mean that 
it's accepted. By the way, why don't you compare Imidan with soap? They're both
synthetic. 

> It should be noted, however, that we don't know for certain which system is more
> harmful.  This is because we do not look at organic pesticides the same way that
> we look at conventional pesticides.  We don't know how long these organic
> pesticides persist in the environment, or the full extent of their effects.
> When you look at lists of pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, you find
> warnings such as, "Use with caution.  The toxicological effects of [organic
> pesticide X] are largely unknown," or "Its persistence in the soil is unknown."
> Again, researchers haven't bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides
> because it is assumed that "natural" chemicals are automatically safe. 

Again, "natural" chemicals are not assumed to be automatically safe. We are 
well aware of the warnings found on the label, and know that the abuse of 
some of these materials can have a deleterious effect. Our Handbook is loaded 
with restrictions, caveats and even prohibitions of those that cause problems 
with human health and the environment.

Through the efforts of researchers like Lynn Coody, organic standards are taking
these characteristics into account in a more systematic way. 

> 
> WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD THIS BEFORE?
> 
> For obvious reasons, organic farmers have done little, if anything, to dispel
> the myth that "organic = chemical/pesticide-free".  They would only stand to
> lose business by making such a disclosure.

On behalf of the members in our organization, I have repeatedly and publicly 
said that organic farmers use pesticides. We have nothing to gain, and much 
to lose if we lose our credibility. An informed consumer is our best customer, 
and all farmers will benefit when we explain not all pesticides are alike. 
Sure, we'll lose some customers, but to whom? Are they going to go to 
conventional farmers who use many more pesticides at much higher volumes, and
who are 15-20x more likely to have food contaminated with pesticide residues? 
I speak from CCOF Growing Practices database, and am not convinced by the 
Kovach study's allegation about pesticide applications.

> Pesticide manufacturers have little concern in the matter.  To them, "synthetic
> pesticides sold" and "organic pesticides sold" are both "pesticides sold".

Well, not quite. For one thing, virtually all biorationals and botanicals 
are not patentable, so pesticide manufacturers cannot gain a monopoly position.
Because the market is so competitive and small, the profit margin is 
thin compared with patented or proprietary formulas, and they aren't all that
interested. For another, many aren't that eager to take on the additional 
regulation that goes with the organic market.

> As for conventional farmers, they are not really in a position to be critical.
> It would not be in their interest to draw attention to chemical and pesticide
> use.

One of the greatest challenges is to bring organic and conventional farmers
together. We're all farmers, we've all got to live and work where we farm.

> 
> WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN?
> 
> The purpose in writing this article is not to discourage you from buying organic
> produce.
> 
> It is only meant to let you know what you are or aren't getting when you make
> such a purchase.  Unless you know your grower personally, there is no guarantee
> that your produce has been grown without pesticides or other chemicals.  It's a
> point to consider, given the substantially higher cost of organic foods.

So there is always a trade-off. Without the few things that organic farmers 
have to control pests, the price of organic food would be much higher still. 
Consider that as well. The price of organic food relative to that of 
conventional has narrowed in many cases as our understanding of biological 
systems have improved. It is not that organic food is too expensive; it is that
conventional food is too cheap because all the costs of synthetic fertilizers 
and pesticides, from their manufacture, transportation, application, drift, 
run-off, residue and disposal are not reflected in the price of the food.

> There are many choices and decisions that we, as consumers, are asked to make.
> Hopefully, this has provided some new information that you will find helpful.
> 
>                       *************
> Please feel free to distribute this article where you like.

Along with my comments, if you choose.
 
> Hard copies of this article in leaflet form (on recycled paper, of course!)
> are available; just send your snail mail address to [email-masked]
> 
> The data describing the carcinogenicity of natural and synthetic compounds are
> referenced in Gold, L.S., et al. (1992) _Science_ Vol. 258, pp. 261-265.
> 
> The study comparing rotenone-pyrethrin and imidan was performed by J. Kovach
> of the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva, New York.

Please give a more complete cite of this so I know that we're on the same page. 
The cite that I have is Kovach, J., C. Petzoldt, J. Degni and J. Tette (1992) 
"A Method to Measure the Environmental Impact of Pesticides" New York State 
Food and Life Sciences Bulletin Number 139. 

I would encourage those interested to also obtain a copy of Coody, L. S. (1993)
Transforming the Goals of the Organic Foods Industry for Use in Materials
Evaluation. To order, contact Hal Ricker at USDA/AMS/TMD/NOPP, P.O. Box 96456,
Washington, DC 20090-6456.

> 
> Many thanks go to the Organic Crop Improvement Association for their cooperation
> in this study.  The OCIA has chapters in AZ, AR, CA, CO, FL, IL, IN, IA, KS,
> MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NM, NC, ND, OH, PA, SD, UT, and WI.  Thanks are also
> extended to the California Certified Organic Farmers, the Ohio Ecological Food
> and Farm Association, and Oregon Tilth Certified Organic.  (The appropriate
> information has not yet been obtained from the Natural Organic Farmers
> Association (NOFA), but it's almost certain that all facts stated here apply 
> to their certified products as well.)  The following state Departments of
> Agriculture have also been very helpful:  AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, IA, LA,
> MD, MI, MS, MO, ND, OK, SC, TN, VA, and WA.  States with no laws governing
> organic products include Alabama, Delaware, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
> -- 
> ****************************************************************************
> *   Lou Hom                 *     "All folks are family."            *
> *   [email-masked]       *                   -- John Saponara   * 
> ****************************************************************************

You're welcome. I want you to know that we will provide our standards to anyone
willing to pay the printing, postage and handling. We will also explain our standards
to anyone who requests it. We are always interested in finding out ways to make
organic agriculture more responsible to considerations of human health and the
environment, and welcome any data or information that would help make it so.

Brian Baker
California Certified Organic Farmers
[email-masked]