[HN Gopher] Traces of 122 different pesticides in 12 most pollut...
___________________________________________________________________
Traces of 122 different pesticides in 12 most polluted fruit and
veg products
Author : sva_
Score : 77 points
Date : 2021-10-02 20:12 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| syntaxing wrote:
| I'm assuming there is different list for different countries? Are
| these "dirty 12" a good representation in the US? If not, anyone
| can point me to a list similar but for the US?
| clairity wrote:
| the dirty dozen concept seems global at this point. i've
| referred people to this list by the Environmental Working Group
| (EWG), though i don't know that it's better than any other:
| https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php
|
| note that the recommendation for these produce items is to buy
| organic. there's a complementary list (clean fifteen) of the
| least polluted produce, for which buying regular is fine:
| https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/clean-fifteen.php
| Nicksil wrote:
| >the dirty dozen concept seems global at this point. i've
| referred people to this list by the Environmental Working
| Group (EWG), though i don't know that it's better than any
| other: https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php
|
| >note that the recommendation for these produce items is to
| buy organic. there's a complementary list (clean fifteen) of
| the least polluted produce, for which buying regular is fine:
| https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/clean-fifteen.php
|
| The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a political lobbying
| group for the organic industry.
| clairity wrote:
| yes, it's not an independent body, but one of many from
| which to triangulate a reasonable position. hopefully it
| was an obviously neutral recommendation.
| jniedrauer wrote:
| > Although the levels of individual pesticides are within legal
| limits, activists fear the combination of multiple chemicals
| could be particularly damaging to people's health.
|
| This is the important part. Activists' fear should not dictate
| health policy. That should be done by scientists.
|
| This organization, Pesticide Action Network, is opposed to GMOs
| and other modern farming techniques that kicked off the green
| revolution, seemingly on principle more than anything else.
| Consumers absolutely should be vigilant, because industrial food
| production has a bad track record. But with 7 billion humans to
| feed and counting, it is not realistic to roll back the green
| revolution.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| Do you think sceintists who have in the past worked for the
| pesticide producers and are still affiliated with them in
| various ways should be included in the decisionmaking?
|
| Do you think these scientists are more or less trustworthy than
| activists with an education and a strong interest in human
| health?
| bawolff wrote:
| > This is the important part. Activists' fear should not
| dictate health policy. That should be done by scientists.
|
| I think anyone should be able to raise an objection - and then
| we should look at the science to decide how valid it is.
|
| The activists seem to be worried that while individually the
| chemicals are fine, maybe they aren't in combination. I have no
| idea if that's true or not, but it doesn't sound impossible,
| and there have certainly been other cases in other contexts
| where a combination is toxic but the individual parts aren't.
| If that's been studied great, if not we should definitely study
| it to find out.
| OJFord wrote:
| > individually the chemicals are fine, maybe they aren't in
| combination
|
| I'm sure I've heard colleagues (more on the 'ag' side of the
| 'agtech' company) mention that, things that can't be used in
| combination, but I can't see where it would be listed (or
| find an example where it is) in the pesticides register:
| https://secure.pesticides.gov.uk/pestreg/prodsearch.asp
|
| I'll ask next week if I remember, curious now, since it seems
| fairly obvious? Just like you can buy all sorts of safe
| household & garden chemicals for cleaning etc. but which if
| you know what you're doing (I don't) and want to (I certainly
| don't) can be used to construct very not-safe things.
| argvargc wrote:
| And when activists _are_ scientists?
|
| Or what about when activists just pay attention to, read and
| understand science?
|
| That, in general, seems to be something rather common -
| emergent science is often what _motivates_ activists,
| especially regarding safety.
|
| Actually, much science itself could be considered an ongoing
| process of a kind of "activism".
|
| As a sibling suggested, if something plausible and potentially
| harmful hasn't been studied enough to rule it out; study it.
| AdamHominem wrote:
| You're implying that because they're within legal limits
| everything is A-OK (how are the limits set? Exhibit A: US
| drinking water pollutant limits, which were raised by Bush, not
| based on science)
|
| ...then launching into an ad hominem attack (either the
| pesticide amounts are safe or not, and it has nothing to do
| with who is asking "is this safe or not?")
|
| ...and jumping on the word "fear" (I say "I fear the gun you've
| pointed at me is loaded and the safety off, would you stop
| pointing it at me until you check it?" You: "Oh ho look who
| says they're about to get shot based on NOTHING BUT FEAR". No,
| I'm asking you to CHECK the gun, and in the meantime stop
| pointing at me, because the nonzero chance of me suffering
| harm)
|
| ...followed by a lot of personal opinion about modern farming
| techniques
|
| ...including a bunch of hand-waiving about how an incredibly
| complex problem will be magic-bulleted (or even helped) by
| rolling back the incredibly loose environmental rules farmers
| are required to follow.
|
| The reason we have 'trouble' feeding 7 billion humans is
| because of trade policies and protectionism. For example, corn
| in Mexico is artificially high in price because the US turns a
| fuckton of its corn into ethanol (which is an energy-negative
| process) and high fructose corn syrup (which is only cost-
| effective because the price of sugar imports is kept
| artificially high by government regulation, to protect US sugar
| producers.) It's also because we do things like dump food in
| countries with hunger, thus collapsing prices for local farmers
| (who then can't survive and stop farming), instead of helping
| those countries produce or buy more food.
|
| Also, please provide evidence that EU farmers (using lower
| pesticide amounts) have lower yields than US farmers. Don't
| forget to account for the cost of the pesticides vs reduced
| yield.
| version_five wrote:
| > This is the important part. Activists' fear should not
| dictate health policy. That should be done by scientists.
|
| Elected politicians should "dictate" - I would say build
| consensus on - health policy. Scientists should inform it.
| mherdeg wrote:
| This is an area where I'm torn. Should I be buying only organic
| produce or should I be spending the same money and energy on
| eating less sugar and more of any kind of produce?
|
| There is a tradeoff... with young kids and a full-time job the
| time I can spend buying or preparing meals is pretty limited. I
| don't fully understand the magnitude of the risks of, say, eating
| too much vs. eating too much pesticide.
|
| I'm also kind of irrationally mad at organizations like the
| Environmental Working Group; as far as I can tell their "dirty
| dozen list" comes from taking public domain FDA data about toxins
| in food, dividing the guideline safe amounts by about 10
| arbitrarily, and publishing that the public numbers are higher
| than their (apparently made up?) lower safety thresholds. I just
| don't understand the science here -- how much extra death are
| they saying I'm incurring by eating non organic produce and what
| are the error bars?
| clairity wrote:
| the (magnitude of) risk isn't certain yet, but it's unlikely
| zero, given our history of poorly quantifying the harmfulness
| of a variety of substances. a reasonable hedge is to buy
| organic for the dirty dozen and non-organic for other produce.
| eat less processed sugar regardless, whether you replace it
| with fruit or not.
| mherdeg wrote:
| Yeah the fact that it took us years to identify issues with
| like, BPA or trans fats -- and the constant churn on stuff
| like glyphosate where it feels like regulators continue to be
| slower than data -- have me worried. Maybe we should be
| buying more organic ... It's not any extra time and not
| overall a huge amount of extra money in the grocery budget.
| clairity wrote:
| yah, washing produce thoroughly also helps reduce (but
| doesn't eliminate) the extra chemicals. these couple
| precautions don't add too much mental/physical burden, imo.
| Nicksil wrote:
| >the (magnitude of) risk isn't certain yet, but it's unlikely
| zero, given our history of poorly quantifying the harmfulness
| of a variety of substances. a reasonable hedge is to buy
| organic for the dirty dozen and non-organic for other
| produce. eat less processed sugar regardless, whether you
| replace it with fruit or not.
|
| If the goal is to reduce ingestion of substances applied to
| crops, then what you describe is not a reasonable hedge as
| both "organic" and conventional crops use pesticides,
| herbicides, and fertilizers. You're better off saving your
| money by buying conventional produce than spending extra
| money on the purchase of the same thing.
| thrwn_frthr_awy wrote:
| It's not about reducing substances-it is about substances
| that are healthy.
| Nicksil wrote:
| >It's not about reducing substances-it is about
| substances that are healthy.
|
| I agree that such substances should not post a risk to
| human health, but there is no argument that organic crop
| products are any better for humans than conventional
| products.
| marcorx wrote:
| The residue of pesticides in food is significantly lower,
| at least in EU. [1]
|
| Some useful points:
|
| - EFSA reports show that conventional agriculture exceeds
| the approved maximum residue levels more often and by a
| higher margin
|
| - A study in Sweden reveals a significantly higher (70x)
| exposure in conventional food vs organic
|
| [1] https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1
| 2940-...
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| > This is an area where I'm torn. Should I be buying only
| organic produce or should I be spending the same money and
| energy on eating less sugar and more of any kind of produce?
|
| Well, if I were you, I would do both, and I would stop working
| a full-time job so that I could focus on raising my kids.
|
| I would also stop trusting the FDA or any other large org,
| because they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy and
| corruptible.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| Stop working a full time job and buying only organic produce
| are kinda mutually exclusive.
| Nicksil wrote:
| >This is an area where I'm torn. Should I be buying only
| organic produce
|
| No.
|
| >should I be spending the same money and energy on eating less
| sugar and more of any kind of produce?
|
| Yes.
|
| It is no surprise you feel torn. Tons of money is invested into
| the marketing of "organic" produce when it has, in-fact, ZERO
| positive gain over conventional produce. The FUD being forced
| down everyone's throat by the "organic" industry is designed to
| make you feel exactly like that. When you introduce doubt, you
| create a path to convince folks into spending money on your
| product.
|
| But don't take my or anyone else's word for it. If you can
| muster the time, spend an hour or so perusing Wikipedia,
| reading articles and collecting sources and you'll find in
| relatively short time the "organic" thing is solely a money
| grab. With "organic" food, you are getting the _same exact
| thing_ grown by conventional methods but at a higher price.
|
| Groups such as the one mentioned in this article don't want you
| to perform your own research, they just want you to believe
| what they have on their web site. It's bogus.
| colordrops wrote:
| If you are going to make such unequivocal statements you
| should back them up with sources, otherwise you are just
| adding more noise than signal.
| Nicksil wrote:
| >If you are going to make such unequivocal statements you
| should back them up with sources, otherwise you are just
| adding more noise than signal.
|
| You're correct. But as I am not on my personal machine, my
| catalog isn't available to me and the time it would take to
| recall all those URLs I don't have. There's good news,
| however, my statements aren't novel and are _very_ easily
| backed by less than 3 minutes between a web search and
| Wikipedia. I hope you hold the author of this article, as
| well as those within the group mentioned, to the same
| standard as they have also supplied no reputable sources.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > With "organic" food, you are getting the same exact thing
| grown by conventional methods but at a higher price.
|
| But thats the problem: you have no way of knowing if
| "conventional methods" (i.e. no pesticides) were used to grow
| the produce unless there is a label signaling it. That label
| is called "organic".
| Nicksil wrote:
| >But thats the problem: you have no way of knowing if
| "conventional methods" (i.e. no pesticides) were used to
| grow the produce unless there is a label signaling it. That
| label is called "organic".
|
| I don't follow. Both "organic" and conventional agriculture
| use pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Not synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.
|
| https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-wh
| at-....
|
| USDA certified organic foods are grown and processed
| according to federal guidelines addressing, among many
| factors, soil quality, animal raising practices, pest and
| weed control, and use of additives. Organic producers
| rely on natural substances and physical, mechanical, or
| biologically based farming methods to the fullest extent
| possible.
|
| Produce can be called organic if it's certified to have
| grown on soil that had no prohibited substances applied
| for three years prior to harvest. Prohibited substances
| include most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. In
| instances when a grower has to use a synthetic substance
| to achieve a specific purpose, the substance must first
| be approved according to criteria that examine its
| effects on human health and the environment (see other
| considerations in "Organic 101: Allowed and Prohibited
| Substances").
| Nicksil wrote:
| Conventional pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are
| more effective and sustainable. Conventional products
| require less of the substance to be applied and less
| frequently. If the concern is about the impact on the
| environment and humans, then the logical choice between
| the organic method and conventional is conventional.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Even if that is accurate(source?), quantity applied says
| nothing about the danger of the substance to humans.
| Nicksil wrote:
| >Even if that is accurate(source?)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming
|
| >quantity applied says nothing about the danger of the
| substance to humans.
|
| Quantity is _the_ deciding factor when talking about
| toxicity to humans. If I 've misunderstood your comment,
| please correct me.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| Let's just take one example:
|
| _Sodium Bicarbonate, commonly known as Baking Soda works
| well as an efficient and cost effective fungicide and
| insecticide. It is actually registered with the EPA for
| use against certain plant fungi, powdery mildew. As a
| foliar spray used in the garden, it works wonders against
| fungus and bugs._
|
| There's approximately no amount of sodium bicarbonate a
| person could reasonably ingest, in this context or any
| other, that would be either immediately harmful or prove
| to be detrimental long term.
|
| You'd have to _really_ try.
| mapcars wrote:
| What does it mean to spend money and time on eating less sugar?
| Spend no money and no time by not buying sugar products, that's
| it.
| smolder wrote:
| It's often more expensive (if not in cash, than in time and
| effort of preparation) to live on healthy calories versus
| cheap ones sourced from corn syrup.
| bawolff wrote:
| 42% of people are obesse in usa. That seems like very obviously
| the more immediate risk by many orders of magnitude. The risk
| of pesticides (that are within legal limits) is a bit more
| nebulous, but seems almost certainly nowhere near as pervasive
| as obesity. If you have a known risk that's significant,
| probably best to focus there.
|
| However is this really the trade off? For the most part you
| can't really buy pesticide free food that's unhealthy.
| [deleted]
| irthomasthomas wrote:
| Organic requires far more land, more water, more fertilizer and
| more energy than traditionaly farmed produce. In addition, the
| pesticed sprayed on crops do not penetrate the skin, and can be
| removed easy by rinsing the produce with water. But organic
| crops contain endogenous pesticides that cannot be washed off.
| Organic crops have been selectively bread over many years to be
| pest resistant, so that they could be grown commercially by
| factory farming. They achieve this by producing more natural
| pesticides, which permeate through all parts of the fruit or
| veg and make organic produce far more toxic than than
| traditional food.
| JamisonM wrote:
| This is the first time I have heard this endogenous pesticide
| argument and I gotta say, it seems extraordinary! Is there
| some solid evidence for this?
| JamisonM wrote:
| (Also the argument that applied pesticides are on the
| surface of plants/produce only is incorrect as a blanket
| statement. There are many systemic insecticides on the
| market and they are usually preferable due to duration of
| protection.)
| sjtindell wrote:
| I'm interested, can you share some source for this
| information?
| Nicksil wrote:
| This article has so much misleading information. It's bonkers.
|
| >The official figures, analysed by Pesticide Action Network
| (PAN), found 122 different pesticides in the 12 most polluted
| products, which the charity calls the "dirty dozen". Many of
| these are hazardous to human health; 61% are classified as highly
| hazardous pesticides (HHPs), a concept used by the UN to identify
| those substances most harmful to human health or the environment.
|
| >The list of pesticides includes 47 with links to cancer, 15
| "reproductive or developmental toxins" that can have adverse
| effects on sexual function and fertility, and 17 cholinesterase
| inhibitors that can impair the respiratory system and cause
| confusion, headaches and weakness. A quarter of the pesticides
| found are suspected endocrine disruptors that can interfere with
| hormone systems, causing an array of health problems including
| birth defects and developmental disorders.
|
| >Every fruit or vegetable on the list contains two or more types
| of pesticide, with some containing up to 25. _Although the levels
| of individual pesticides are within legal limits_ , activists
| fear the combination of multiple chemicals could be particularly
| damaging to people's health.
|
| " _Although the levels of individual pesticides are within legal
| limits_ "
|
| This is buried but this is what it all comes down to.
|
| Every chemical can be hazardous to humans. Every one of 'em.
| Water? Yeah, you can die from too much water
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication).
|
| If you're wondering why you have yet to die from consuming these
| foods or why our average life expectancy hasn't declined since we
| began applying these products, it's because they are in-fact
| _not_ harmful to humans in the quantities allowed for
| agricultural application.
|
| >"The best way for people to avoid pesticides is to buy organic.
| Of course, almost no one in the UK can financially afford or
| access a fully organic diet so that is why we publish the dirty
| dozen - to help consumers prioritise which produce to avoid," she
| said.
|
| Here, again, is the misconception "organic" foods are produced
| without the application of pesticides, herbicides, and
| fertilizer. Of course these "organic" crops have pesticides,
| herbicides, and fertilizer applied. If they didn't, there
| wouldn't be enough output to sustain the size of the "organic"
| industry we see today.
|
| "Organic" crops may not use the same products as conventional
| agriculture because of seemingly arbitrary rules they came up
| with governing the make-up of such products. Now here's where it
| gets especially frustrating: The "organic" variety of these
| products are less effective than the more advanced variety used
| by everyone else. More of the chemical is required to achieve the
| desired output. _More_ , not less, of these "organic" chemical
| products are being applied to the "organic" foods you consume.
|
| >There are also environmental implications: half of the top 12
| pesticides found are groundwater contaminants, meaning they
| persist in water bodies, potentially affecting aquatic
| biodiversity or drinking water quality. The list includes the
| neonicotinoid acetamiprid which, while thought to be less toxic
| to pollinators than other neonicotinoids, PAN says could still
| represent a potential threat to bee health.
|
| This is true for _all_ applications of such chemicals; including
| the chemicals used to treat "organic" crops. When you put stuff
| in the environment, it will become detectable in the environment.
|
| >Mole added: "Consumers presume that their food has been through
| rigorous testing and that if an item is available for sale in the
| UK then it must be safe. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily
| the case. [...]"
|
| Yes it is. Rigorous testing is being conducting on a nearly
| constant basis. Whether we find something in the future that is
| harmful to humans does not mean testing had not taken place, it
| means our science and understanding has advanced to the point
| where we're capable of discovering such a thing.
|
| > [...] We actually have very limited understanding of the long-
| term impacts to human health of consuming small amounts of tens
| of different pesticides every day of our lives."
|
| No we don't. We have a pretty good understanding of the long-term
| impacts to human health of consuming small amounts of different
| "organic" and conventional pesticides.
|
| >A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and
| Rural Affairs said: "All food sold in the UK must meet strict
| rules on pesticide residue to ensure it is safe to eat. These are
| enforced via a comprehensive residues monitoring programme
| overseen by an independent specialist body and in 2020 more than
| 97% of tested samples were compliant.
|
| And buried at the end of it all is this. But why should we
| believe _the government_ when this interest group is scaring us
| into buying more "organic" produce?
|
| This is bananas. I am genuinely surprised such a low-quality,
| low-effort article, spreading blatant fear, uncertainty, and
| doubt was published by The Guardian.
|
| ---
|
| I've enclosed the term "organic" in quotes in some context
| because the word is absolutely meaningless when used to describe
| foods. All food is organic. "Organic" is this context is a
| marketing term and nothing more.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > I've enclosed the term "organic" in quotes in some context
| because the word is absolutely meaningless when used to
| describe foods. All food is organic. "Organic" is this context
| is a marketing term and nothing more.
|
| I think you mean "natural" not organic? Everything in the
| universe is inherently natural.
|
| Cynicism about "organic" labels used to be grounded, but at
| least in the USA, use of the term is now regulated by the USDA
| and it has a very specific definition.
|
| I used to have similar cynical beliefs about "organic" food.
| And i think even 10 years ago that cynicism was justified, but
| not anymore. I encourage you to update your knowledge and to
| keep an open mind.
|
| Having said that, i think the anti-GMO movement is nonsense.
| There's nothing wrong with GMO produce as far as i can tell. In
| the USA, i do not think GMO crops make the harvest non-organic.
| In other words, GMO status is not related to organic status. I
| think. Of course thats unlikely to be true in the EU where GMO
| crops are demonized. Please correct me if wrong.
| Nicksil wrote:
| >I think you mean "natural" not organic? Everything in the
| universe is inherently natural.
|
| No, I meant organic.
|
| >I used to have similar cynical beliefs about "organic" food.
| And i think even 10 years ago that cynicism was justified,
| but not anymore.
|
| My comments aren't derived from cynicism. The information
| I've provided is widely available and easily consumable. I
| have not introduced any novel idea or position.
|
| >I encourage you to update your knowledge and to keep an open
| mind.
|
| Having an open/closed mind has no affect on whether
| information is correct.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_pesticide
| s
| Nicksil wrote:
| >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_pestic
| ides
|
| I'm not sure what you're meaning to say by giving that
| link, but there isn't anything there to refute anything
| I've commented on. With respect to the organic argument,
| every topic mentioned in that article applies to organic
| crop products just as well.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| You're entire argued through the comments here seem to be that
| we should trust the government, current monitoring practices,
| existing limits, and the current science.
|
| This is a _very fucking shaky foundation_ to base an argument.
|
| We have every reason to be highly doubtful of all of those and
| to continue to seek more refined certainty.
| Nicksil wrote:
| >You're entire argued through the comments here seem to be
| that we should trust the government, current monitoring
| practices, existing limits, and the current science.
|
| I have mentioned government _once_ and even in that comment
| was in the context of comparing it to an entity which should
| not go unquestioned much less anything concerning
| regulations. That 's a straw man.
|
| >This is a very fucking shaky foundation to base an argument.
|
| >We have every reason to be highly doubtful of all of those
| and to continue to seek more refined certainty.
|
| I have made _zero_ arguments concerning any of this. I don 't
| understand what you're getting to.
| ObamaBinSpying wrote:
| I wonder if any of those oranges were from California... because
| they are very anti carcinogenic agents.
| mrfusion wrote:
| How bad are these? What can a person realistically do?
| mandmandam wrote:
| So, 74 'Highly Hazardous Pesticides' from just 12 fruit. And
| likely with significant crossover, so you get double and triple-
| dosed.
|
| We know they're more toxic than your ex, and we know that there's
| people out there eating all these fruits and grains, like your
| mum.
|
| So why do we have debate on Round-ups' toxicity, or the 'economic
| benefits' of robot-powered, topsoil-eroding mono-cultures with no
| life in them?
|
| Why do we talk about MDMA piss polluting rivers after festivals,
| instead of the persistent petrochemical pesticides fucking up all
| our water and insects and birds and insides?
|
| We _know_ organic perma-culture is better; for our bodies, for
| the soil, for the water and birds and bees.
|
| ... But there are statuses to quo I guess, so fuck us.
| Nicksil wrote:
| >We know organic perma-culture is better; for our bodies, for
| the soil, for the water and birds and bees.
|
| It's _not_ better. Not a thing about it makes it better than
| conventional agriculture. Indeed one could make the argument it
| is _worse_ than conventional agriculture for the items you
| listed because of the less effective methods used for
| "organic" pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer application.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| I mean, have you read anything about Roundup? If so, how can
| you say that?
| Nicksil wrote:
| >I mean, have you read anything about Roundup? If so, how
| can you say that?
|
| What specifically about Roundup are you referring to?
| deltasixeight wrote:
| Theoretically if the pesticide is below a certain threshold I
| should be fine. However if I mix thousands of dangerous chemicals
| together while keeping each portion below the danger threshold
| until I have a cup of this stuff I can gulp down than in theory I
| should be fine.
|
| However if I suffer from ingesting such a concoction then
| logically this theory of keeping chemicals below certain danger
| thresholds does not logically hold weight.
| cheschire wrote:
| I'm unsure why you're being downvoted unless the downvoters
| just didn't read till the end.
|
| I wonder if that's a regularly used loophole in the use of
| chemicals on foods.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Vertical farming is a solution, because it needs no pesticide
| being in a clean environment.
| dabfiend19 wrote:
| do you have any evidence of this? from my personal experience
| pests are an even bigger problem for growing plants indoors.
|
| lack of predatory parts of the food chain allow some pests to
| go unchecked.
|
| just one spider mite in a greenhouse... could quickly overtake
| the whole thing with out natural predators like lady bugs and
| predatory mites.
| klyrs wrote:
| A friend of mine is a mycologist who studies fungi that grow in
| hydroponic greenhouses. I feel fairly safe saying that there's
| no such thing as a "clean" environment where anything is
| allowed to grow. In the best case: if it's clean but nutritious
| enough to support life, it's ripe for rapid colonization, and
| probably by something nasty.
|
| See also: biosphere experiments.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-02 23:00 UTC)