Subject: Re: Organic vs Chemical: language vs reality

From: Travis Saling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 22:14:03 -0800

I like what Johnny's Selected Seeds says in their catalog:

"When it comes to producing fine seeds or any farm and garden product, 
organic does not necessarily mean 'good' and non-organic 'bad'.  We know 
many first class growers using some chemicals who are taking better care 
of their land than some unskilled growers who avoid all chemicals.  We 
salute every grower who consciously works by whatever method to produce 
healthy products and to improve his/her soil.  Our health and our 
farmland are irreplaceable and should not be taken for granted."

>From  page 3 of the 1995 Vegetable/Flowers/Herbs/Garden Supplies catalog.

---

From: [email-masked] (Allyn Weaks)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 1995 23:35:44 -0800

In article <[email-masked]>, Dwight Sipler
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>[email-masked] (John E. Verin ) wrote:
>>A few months ago there was an extensive debate thread called "Organic
>>vs Chemical."
>>One idea discussed is that "organic" doesn't necessarily mean
>>healthy/safe, and "chemical" doesn't necessarily mean toxic/dangerous.
>>I feel this is true (basically nothing isn't chemical), yet some of you
>>(chemists?) vehemently defended the word "chemical," scorning so-called
>>naive people for accepting such limited concepts of each word. Yet, no
>>alternative terms were proposed to facilitate conversation of that
>>which is eco- and non-eco-friendly.

It's not that hard to say 'toxin' or 'poison' or 'pesticide', or even
'synthetic pesticide'.  The most important problem I see with the sloppy
language isn't necessarily that the language itself is sloppy or lazy (we
scientists and ex-scientists are often enough lazy amongst ourselves);
it's that the _way_ in which the use of 'chemical' is sloppy shows an
underlying deep-seated lack of understanding of the most basic principles
of chemistry and biology.   Principles that I was literally taught in
third grade (thank you, Mrs. Brummet!).

The world we live in has become extremely complex technologically, and we
in the US and many other countries are expected to vote for people who
make crucial technological/ecological decisions on our behalf, and
sometimes to vote directly on a technological issue.  One simply _cannot_
vote responsibly or purchase and use products responsibly without an
_understanding_ of the basics of science, especially biology and
chemistry.  If you vote with your emotions, or what you see on tv, you
will not get what you wanted, but what you asked for (and perhaps
deserve?), which is often a very different thing indeed.

Absolutely required reading: 

Author:       Edmondson, W. T.
Title:        The Uses of Ecology: Lake Washington and Beyond
Publisher:    University of Washington Press
Year:         1991
ISBN/Price:   0-295-97024-3 Trade Cloth $22.50
Subj (BIP):   WATER-POLLUTION.  LAKE-ECOLOGY

Edmondson says it all better than I can, and gives some enlightening
examples.  (His description of trying to educate a lawyer is priceless!)

The reason that the nit-pickers amongst us don't provide easy terms for
eco- and non-eco-friendly is that it simply isn't that simple.  You _must_
take things on a case by case basis, learn as much as possible about the
general principles, as much as possible about whatever you plan to use,
and as much as possible about the particular system that you plan to use
it on.  What is 'friendly' in one circumstance could be extremely
un-friendly in a different circumstance.  In the US, the label laws are an
attempt to help out a bit.  Even the unfriendly toxins would be less of a
problem if people would read and follow the labels, and the 'friendly'
ones can be a total disaster if used improperly.  Whatever you use, read
and follow the label.  It's not just a good idea, it's federal law.

As an example of a pesticide purchasing and use decision that requires
more than simple emotional lables and hype, let's examine in some detail
the use of a naturally derived 'organic' pesticide, pyrethrin, that Dwight
brings up:

>I missed the previous thread but I feel the above point has some merit. I 
>grow things "organically", but try to avoid any broad spectrum pesticides 
>(since I have a couple beehives near my fields). Other growers are also 
>"organic" but use pyrethrins/rotenone type things. I don't have a good 
>term to offer for "light" or eco-friendly (?) pesticides, but I will be 
>watching this thread for suggestions.

Pyrethrins (substitute rotenone or other plant derived pesticide if you
like) are accepted by the 'organic', anti-'chemical' crowd because they
are produced by a plant in cellular chemical factories, and merely
harvested and concentrated by humans, rather than produced entirely in a
human chemical factory.  One of the desirable characteristics of
pyrethrin, aside from its toxicity to quite a wide variety of bugs, is
that it is pretty safe for humans, pets and other mammals.  Seems like a
good deal, right?  But take a look at my earlier assumption that 'toxicity
to quite a wide variety of bugs' is desirable; is it really?

Well, not if you've paid attention in high school biology to the
predator/prey section.  Pest bugs in general are pesty because they eat
the plants that we want to eat ourselves, thus pests tend to be
herbivores.  Herbivores are prey, eaten by predators.  It is the nature of
prey to breed prolifically; they breed fast because they don't live long:
they expect to be someone's dinner at any moment.  Aphids are born
pregnant.  As you go higher up the food chain, breeding often slows down. 
Ladybug eggs need days to hatch, and there are only a few in a clutch. 
Once they hatch, the larvae take a long time to grow up enough to turn
into a breeding adult.  I watched some on my apple tree that took nearly
two weeks before they metamorphosed.  The other part of the predator/prey
relationship is that energy is lost along the trail from sunlight to plant
to herbivore to predator.  No animal utilises everything it eats; waste
products are excreted to become food in turn for the decomposer cycle. 
The result of this energy inefficiency is that prey animals greatly
outnumber the predators.  On average, pound for pound, there is ten times
as much prey biomass as predator biomass for each level.  So for every
1000 pounds of aphid there are 100 pounds of ladybug, and 10 pounds of
ladybug-eating bird and 1 pound of bird-eating fox.  The numbers of
individuals are even more extreme, because predators tend to be much
larger than their prey.

Who cares?  Pyrethrin is safe for the kids and pets, and has the Rodale
seal of approval; what difference does all that biology stuff make?

So, another bio tidbit:  any organism stressed by it's environment has the
chance to evolve a defense against that stress if it doesn't die outright
before it breeds.  It doesn't _purposely_ evolve the defense, it's just
that by accident and randomness some percentage of the population is
likely to be resistant to that particular stress, and therefore will
survive it.  Those that survive will probably pass that resistance on to
their offspring.  Say one percent is resistant and survives, and due to
the particular genetics, that causes half of the next generation to be
resistant, all of which breed like aphids.  You now have a problem...your
friendly, mammal safe, 'organically' sanctioned pesticide no longer kills
the pests, so you're forced to move to something stronger.  Something that
probably isn't quite as mammal safe.  And guess what?  The same danged
thing happens, and you have to switch to yet another, even less mammal
safe pesticide.

But wait, there's more!  Remember that predators breed more slowly than
prey, and that there are a lot fewer of them?  How does this affect their
resistance to those pesticides?  They evolve far more slowly on average. 
So you hit them harder with that first 'safe' pesticide than you hit the
pests, and before they have a chance to start recovering, you hit them
even harder with the second one.  A pest can sometimes bounce back the
very same year.  It can take several years for predators to return,
assuming that any at all survived the onslaught.  You might have to import
some.  But if you do that, you'll get a bug that really evolved for a
different climate, and may be less successful in it's new home.  Or
perhaps it will be so successful that it becomes a pest in it's own
right.  And in any case, you can only import a couple of species.  Pehaps
you wiped out hundreds.

But hey, that's not all!  I mentioned way back there that not every scrap
of energy is used up by the prey and predators.  There's plenty left over
for the decomposers to chew on.  Do please fall in love with your
decomposers, because the world would be a very messy place indeed without
them.  So messy that life couldn't continue, because essential elements
would get tied up and become unavilable for plants, and without plants,
animals die.  What does this have to do with pesticides?  Well, that
pyrethrin is pretty safe for mammals.  But is it safe for the
decomposers?  Many levels of the decomposer cycle tend to be insects. 
Hmm.  And how about the essential bacteria?  Can they survive being doused
with it?  How about the fungi?  And the earthworms?  Well, nobody knows. 
Nobody even knows how many species there are in typical healthy soil (but
it's in the tens or hundreds of thousands), let alone what they should be
called or how they react to various kinds of stresses and toxins.  What is
known is that the more species there are, the more stable everything is. 
If you wipe out a fraction of species, even microscopic ones, the system
as a whole becomes less resilient.  Take it to an extreme and imagine a
world that contains only grass and cows and humans.  Along comes a minor
drought that kills the grass.  Oops.  If there had been enough dandelions
in that mix, and violets and clover, perhaps the cows wouldn't have
starved to death, with us next in line...  This isn't as silly as you
think; it's precisely why the Norse died out of Greenland.  The climate
cooled just a little bit; they couldn't grow enough grass to overwinter
the cattle, and so they starved to death.

If a safe, 'natural' pesticide can cause this much chaos, how much worse
the synthetics must be!  Well, not necessarily.  Just now, most synthetics
do indeed have enough problems that for the most part I wouldn't use
them.  Small amounts of Roundup on bindweed and quackgrass is as far as
I'll go, and that reluctantly.  Humans are still rather clumsy infants in
the game of chemical warfare; plants and animals are far better and more
sophisticated at it.  However, knowledge of biochemistry is proceeding at
such a rapid rate that to read a book about it that's more than a year or
two old is to read a history book.  It is quite possible that in our
lifetimes we'll really understand enough to construct a pesticide that is
extremely specific to one particular species of pest, that doesn't upset
the predators or decomposers, and that is quickly broken down by those
decomposers.  One would still need to use it wisely, and probably only
when the alternative warrants it.  But at that point, the synthetic
chemical would actually be safer than the 'natural' chemical, and have
fewer side effects.

Dwight's terminolgy of 'broad spectrum' is far more useful and descriptive
of a pesticide than 'organic'.  The source of a pesticide is much less
important than how it works, and thus what it's side effects are likely to
be.  Most 'organic' remedies such as pyrethrin and even soaps, tend to be
broad spectrum.  They kill many or most species in the targeted class:
predator as well as prey for insecticides, the essential mycorhizal and
saprophytic fungi as well as the disease causing fungi for fungicides,
crop plant as well as weeds for herbicides.

The question you should ask about a pesticide isn't "is it 'natural' or
'synthetic'"?  Ask a lot of questions:

*)  How does it work?  Does it physically kill the pest (soap causes a bug
to drown) or is it a metabolic poison?  It's harder for a pest to evolve a
resistance to a mechanical threat such as drowning than to poisons, so
properly applied soap is better in that respect than pyrethrin.

*)  How long does it persist in the environment?  The faster it breaks
down the better.

*)  What does it break down into?  Some pesticides that are safe in
themselves can have break-down products that are worse than what you
started with.

*)  Does it percolate easily through soil, and does it matter what kind of
soil?  Some pesticides attach themselves very strongly to either organic
matter or clay, less strongly to silt and sand.  This holds them in place,
giving the decomposers time to do their thing and decompose them.  Some
don't attach themselves at all, and quickly wash into the water supply 
where aquatic plants and animals are generally much more sensitive to
toxins than land plants and animals.  People who live in areas with very
little clay in the soil, or who live close to streams, or just above the
water table, should be especially careful about the use of toxins.

*)  How toxic is it to: mammals; birds; honeybees and other bees;
herbivorous insects; predatory insects; other invertebrates; aquatic
invertebrates; other aquatic life; fungi?

*)  Does it bioaccumulate?  Does the prey which eats it store it in its
tissue, to be then eaten by the predator, who then stores it at an even
higher concentration for the next predator to eat?  Bioaccumulation is a
Bad Thing.  Choose products which pass through the beast.  As a general
rule of thumb, oil soluble products bioaccumulate, and water soluble ones
are less likely to.

*)  What are the inactive ingredients?  Do write your congress critters
about this one, and badger the salesdroids.  The label law as it stands
allows companies to hide some quite nasty things in the 'inactive
ingredient' lump.

*)  What goes into the manufacture of the product?  What wastes are
generated and how are they disposed of?  Even if it's the ideal pesticide
in all other respects, if it causes significant toxic waste to be dumped
in your air or water supply, maybe you should tolerate a few holes in your
apples.  Don't assume that 'natural' chemicals are necessarily better in
this respect.  It isn't really all that natural to breed a plant to
produce more af a pesticide than it would on its own, then grow thousand
upon thousand of acres of it, then mechanically process the plant to
extract the active ingredient...what do they do with their residues? 
Discharge it into streams?  Burn it?  I don't know, but if I planned to
use it, I'd find out...

How does one find out any of this stuff?  Some, such as the last two, you
may not be able to, because the companies making it aren't legally
required to tell you.  But much of the rest is available at the ExToxNet
site at Oregon State:   http://sulaco.oes.orst.edu:70/1/ext/extoxnet  They
have a large collection of pesticide data in a standard easy to read and
understand format.

>(I'm not sure how a pesticide can be eco-friendly since the pests are part 
>of the ecosystem. That's probably not the term I'm looking for).

Got it in one!  The best and most effective solution to pest problems is
turning out to be biodiversity.  Make your personal ecosystem as complex
as you can, then it's unlikely that any one species will get out of hand
for long.  Plant mixed-species hedgerows to provide cover and food supply
for predatory insects and birds.  Keep your soil healthy with plenty of
organic matter for the decomposers to work on.  Keep your plants healthy
not only by providing the right amounts of nutrients (test, don't guess)
and organic matter, but avoid soil compaction: don't till every year to
the same depth, never till wet ground, tolerate a mole or two, or a
gopher.  They are primary soil stirrers and topsoil builders, and more
than worth their weight in compost.  Don't plant monocultures - mix your
plant species to make the pests work for their supper.  Plant natives when
possible; they are better adapted to your climate, soil and pests, and
will better attract the insects and birds that you need.

And aren't you all glad that I have to go catch the last bus? :-)
-- 
Allyn Weaks
[email-masked]
PNW Native Wildlife Gardening:  (under construction)
  http://chemwww.chem.washington.edu/natives/

---

From: [email-masked] (Thomas C. Waters)
Date: 10 Nov 1995 13:00:31 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>

> to quite a wide variety of bugs' is desirable; is it really?

I cut out the long and mostly irrelevant discussion.  You are getting a
few points mixed up and IMHO, are doing a real disservice to folks here
on the net.

First of all, it isn't acceptable to substitute rotonone for
pyrethrins.  They are different substances and need to be treated
differently.  Just like malathion and Sevin are different.  They may
kill some of the same bugs... but that's about all they have in common.

You miss one of the most important reasons for using organic
pesticides.. that thet degrade quickly and therefore stand less chance
of hurting the environment.  Safety to mammels is onlt one concern.  If
we look at safety to humans alone, Sevin is far safer to use than
Rotenone.  But Sevin is REALY REALY damaging to honey bees.  Rotenone
not nearly as damaging to bee populations.  Safety needs to take into
consideration a variety of facors, not onlt mammel safety.

You are quite true however, that organic doesn't mean you can be sloppy
with the stuff.  All pesticides are killers and all must be handled
properly and following the directions.  None should ever be applied to
crops for which they are not listed or in ways other than what is
reccommended.

You little biology lesson about predator and "meal" is also a bit off.
In nature, a balance exists betwwen insects, and in general, the
natural preditors keep the pest bugs in check.  Never totally gone, but
at low populations.  This is refered to as the economic injury level. 
It is the level at which serious enoughdamage occurs to warrent use of
some form of pesticide.

Without human intervention, theoretically all the bugs would keep the
bad bug population under control.  Unfortunately years and years of
pesticides has helped destroy the natural balance.  And there is in
nature, those times when devastation does occur.  For us gardeners, the
possibility of devastation is well above the economic injury level, so
we generally figure we must kill those bugs!!! 

Most predator bugs like praying mantis and Ladybugs consume many many
times their body weight in aphids, lepidopterous larvae, etc.  The way
you paint the picture is skewed in the wronfg direction.

Most organic growers don't rely solely on org.pesticides or benificial
insects.  We know that any good pest management program must be
integreated and involve other factors as well.  Mechanical control,
such as hand picking, traps, barrier plantings all have a place.  Too,
the timing of planting, and the timing of controls help keep pests
below the EIL.  When all these management stategies are combined, a
successful organic control program is in process.

It is true that pests will develope a resistamce to a pesticide over
time.  This will happen with organics too if over uesed the way the
chemical ones have been overused.  An integrated control program
however, does not suffer fromn that possibility.

While some chemicals are just plain toxic, others are problems due to
the way they interupt the overall garden environment.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, the use of resistant and tolerant
varieties helps.

The issue really isn't organic vs chemical, but rather the over dumping
of a pesticide(chemical or nonchemical) vs the manages pest control
offered by an integrated program.
 
> the synthetics must be! 

A fallacious argument!!!!!!!

> crop plant as well as weeds for herbicides.

And others, such as Thuricide are very specific.
 
> 'synthetic'"?  Ask a lot of questions:

You list really good questions.  Thanks for explaining them so well!!!

> will better attract the insects and birds that you need.

Well said!!!!

Thomas C. Waters
[email-masked]
I always assume someone is gay unless they tell me otherwise.

"When evil men plot, good men must plan.  When evil men burn and bomb,
good men must build and bind.  When evil men shout ugly words of
hatred, good men must commit themselves to the glories of love."
                                        Martin Luther King Jr.

---

From: Dwight Sipler <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Nov 1995 16:01:04 GMT

I think the discussion to this point has been very interesting. I 
would like to note that I didn't have anything specific against 
rotenone or pyrethrins, I was just using them as an example. I 
might consider using them sometime. However, I might also 
consider using a synthetic pesticide also if it does the job with 
the minimum disruption of the environment.

As I see it at the moment, the main things to consider when 
confronted by a pest problem are:

1:  Is there an ecology-based solution? i.e. (assuming we're 
talking about bugs for the moment) is there a bug that eats (or 
otherwise neutralizes) the pest bug? Can the predator be 
encouraged or imported without significant adverse side effects? 
(this question can be modified to consider fungi, viruses, weeds 
or anything else considered a pest).

2:  If not, is there another (possibly chemical) way to manage 
the pest? (In this context, chemical includes both naturally 
produced and synthetic chemicals). Will the chemical control have 
significant adverse side effects? (Management (as opposed to 
complete obliteration) is probably an important concept to get 
across and I should have mentioned it above.)

3:  You can probably define an adverse side effect for any pest 
control, either chemical, biological or ecological. What 
constitutes a significant adverse side effect? How can we weigh 
the damage caused as a side effect against the damage caused by 
the pest? It's not just economics here. It's also not just the 
environment here. This area is the one which is probably the most 
subjective.

Of course, when considering side effects, it's not enough to 
think only locally. All the pest control substances (or devices) 
you can buy have a cost to the environment due to the energy 
consumed in their production, transportation and application. 
Even the "natural" controls. Some of the manufacturing processes 
may result in generation of hazardous waste or biohazards. 
There's a lot to know about everything and I'm not convinced that 
we can know it all.

I suspect this thread has a long way to go.

---

From: Travis Saling <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 10:58:56 -0800

> ...You miss one of the most important reasons for using organic
> reccommended...

One thing that people seem to miss is:  If you routinely follow a 
regular, preventative application of "organic" (botanical is a better 
word) pesticides, you're mimicking the application of persistent 
chemicals; your pests will become resistant.  Witness the mutation of the 
diamondback moth in Hawaii and another moth (sorry, I don't remember the 
type) in Florida.  Both are now resistant to BT.

What's so awful about eating lettuce that has a few holes in it?  If you
have severe problems (like the cabbage maggots and cabbage worms up here),
try a barrier like Agryl or Reemay.  Pests shouldn't become resistant to
THAT (unless they grow to several pounds!  My floating row covers don't
keep the neighbor's dog out very well). 

Travis