[HN Gopher] Pesticide safety limit for salmon farms watered down...
___________________________________________________________________
Pesticide safety limit for salmon farms watered down after industry
lobbying
Author : myshpa
Score : 184 points
Date : 2023-09-03 13:55 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (theferret.scot)
(TXT) w3m dump (theferret.scot)
| dingdingdang wrote:
| What could be a exercise in improving and vetting an
| international brand of "healthy" Scottish farmed salmon instead
| becomes a class in "how to make people stop eating farmed salmon
| at all". Pathetic levels of short sightedness.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Grrrreeeeeaaaat. How do these lobbyists sleep at night? Oh that's
| right, they know the areas to avoid... scum.
| dang wrote:
| " _Please don 't fulminate._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| fishguy23 wrote:
| There are two things to note here.
|
| 1. I believe the initial change from 12 to 131 ng/kg was science-
| based. Based on the literature and science process 12 ng/kg was
| the wrong number.
|
| 2. This change won't matter. The amount of chemical required per
| use leads to concentrations that are 10-100 times the new limit.
|
| SEPA rules require a prediction showing that the average
| concentration within the predicted deposition area is less then
| the limit. Regardless of the increased limit it will not be
| possible.
| edgarvaldes wrote:
| The other day, when the news about the Fukushima water was on tje
| HN frontpage, some folks talked about "time to buy farmed fish
| only". Oh boy.
| myth_drannon wrote:
| After 90% of my apple harvest gone to garbage due to Apple
| Maggot/Railroad Worm, I'm not surprised by the extensive use of
| pesticide in the agriculture industry. Probably like half of
| human population would die from starvation due to failed crops if
| we didn't use pesticides. Could we use less toxic ways to keep
| our food safe? I don't know.
| samtho wrote:
| I am probably in the minority here, but I think GMOs are an
| amazing advancement. We've been "genetically modifying" crops
| for years with selective breeding, we have now just been able
| to speed up the process.
|
| Genetic engineering has enabled us to grow potatoes, corn, and
| cotton that contain some DNA from bacteria that encodes (I.e
| contains the recipe for) a protein, referred to as Bt Crystal
| Toxin, that disrupts the metabolism of some major pests. They
| are regarded as safe for humans because it requires both a
| higher pH (alkaline) and specific receptors that humans lack in
| order to do damage to an organism.
| pard68 wrote:
| The real issue that I see with GMO is the reason for it,
| namely creating crops immune to poison. I am all for GMOs
| that produce a better plant but the practical result of GMO
| is a plant that can tolerate poison.
| SenAnder wrote:
| GMOs as technology, and the effects of GMOs on food
| sovereignty, are two very different things. I don't want
| multinational biotech companies to be the only ones able to
| compete.
|
| Though the technology isn't harmless either. Let's assume
| sufficient care is and perpetually will be taken to avoid
| major disasters. What remains is amoral for-profit companies
| that now have far more ability to engineer food for market
| fit. Why is this bad? Because carrots and apples will slowly
| turn into the equivalents of Snickers and Cheetos - those are
| the products we get when not constrained by nature.
| cma wrote:
| You may not really get carrots and apples either, those are
| domesticated. You might just be left with tiny labor
| intensive wild carrots and crab apples or something to keep
| it fully natural.
| SenAnder wrote:
| Show me where in my comment I proposed to remain "fully
| natural".
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Spinosad is supposed to be beneficial for apple maggot
| treatment and is relatively safe for the local environment.
| giantg2 wrote:
| You can coat red Christmas ornaments in tanglefoot and hang
| them on the apple trees. It seems to cut down on the number of
| apple maggots since the flies get stuck to them.
| myth_drannon wrote:
| Well I did the Christmas ornament to protect from birds which
| helped a lot but did not protect from the fly. Next year I
| will buy some stick paper that is supposed to fight the fly.
| myshpa wrote:
| Have you seen The Biggest Little Farm?
|
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8969332/
|
| Maybe biodiversity is the solution.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Check the one straw revolution as well
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Probably like half of human population would die from
| starvation due to failed crops if we didn't use pesticides.
|
| Half the food that is produced ends up wasted, and a serious
| amount of crops isn't even counted in that total figure because
| it's destined from the start for fucking biofuel.
|
| Get rid of that waste, get rid of fossil fuels, and you can
| feed the world comfortably without having to turn farms into
| chemical weapon dispensers against all kinds of wildlife.
| mkoubaa wrote:
| Until you, mschuster91, figure out how to get rid of food
| waste and fossil fuels, id rather half the world not starve.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Y'all could just look at Europe. The US wastes
| approximately 40% (!!!) of their entire production [1],
| Europe only around 20% [2]. The average American drives
| 21.000 km/a, Europeans ~15.000.
|
| If you need it spelled out what you need to do: limit
| portion sizes in restaurants (where a lot of the food waste
| happens, also contributing to the insane rat infestation
| issues [3]) by law since Americans seem to love extensive
| portions, educate people how to cook and how to _plan_
| cooking, ban ultra large food packaging that no reasonable
| family can use before the product goes bad, and introduce
| actual public transit on all levels from local over
| regional to interstate to reduce your dependency on fossil
| fuels.
|
| [1] https://www.rts.com/resources/guides/food-waste-
| america/
|
| [2] https://zerowasteeurope.eu/our-work/eu-policy/waste-
| manageme...
|
| [3] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/11/27/1659079
| 72/fo...
| lucidguppy wrote:
| Freeze more meat and veg. Puree or dehydrate the ugly
| stuff. Educate people on how to not overbuy and how to
| fucking cook.
|
| You can't eliminate food waste - but many well off
| Americans have no clue about how to properly feed
| themselves while minimizing waste.
| pard68 wrote:
| Apple, cherry, pear are all hard crops because of bug
| predation. My rudimentary understanding (I am a farmer just not
| a fruit farmer, so I just know what other farmers tell me) is
| that these non-native fruit trees have to contend with bugs it
| has no defense for. The native fruits are far more successful.
|
| My personal experience matches. Our apple and cherry and peach
| harvests are hit or miss. Our pawpaw, hickory, and passion
| fruit harvests ae always exceptional.
| myth_drannon wrote:
| Yes, maybe it's the non-native tree issue. So I'm in Canada
| now, but I clearly remember as a child in Belarus/USSR that
| we had so many apples trees and never had issues with bugs.
| We would collect many boxes and have them stored until early
| spring.
| esel2k wrote:
| Like genetic modifications, or as they did hundreds of years
| ago with hybridisation.
|
| I am all for it (even though it needs to be watched and not
| used for any sort of chemical increase only decrease) why not?
| Ar-Curunir wrote:
| Nobody is relying on apples for the majority of our calories.
| blindriver wrote:
| Climate change is a problem that needs to be solved, but things
| like this to me are a much more pressing issue. We are poisoning
| ourselves because of industry and no one seems to think about it.
|
| We can't eat fish more than once a week because fish are so
| poisoned. I have a close friend who had to go through chelation
| therapy because her blood had so many heavy metals from eating
| sushi 2-3 a week for a year.
|
| Industries that create pollution need MORE regulation, not less
| and things like this is depressing, where industry is able to
| corruptly change laws to benefit themselves and poison the people
| around them.
| rajnathani wrote:
| I think that a good dietary solution would be for us to get
| more culinarily creative with algae in food dishes. Most of the
| important nutrients such as omega-3s (DHA), micronutrients, and
| and apparently one of the most effective antioxidants that is
| Astaxanthin, are all picked by fish directly or indirectly (via
| other fish) from eating algae.
|
| While algae may not have the same taste-profile or texture as
| fish, at least we would be able to make a difference
| (particularly with climate change and better preserving our
| environment from toxins as described by the article) by making
| socially-normal algae-based options for people who currently
| choose to eat fish on a more regular basis for nutritional
| reasons.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| I look forward to the headline "Pesticide safety limit for
| algae farms watered down after industry lobbying"
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| There problem is if there's any more politically powerful force
| than "the children" it's "the farmers," despite the fact almost
| all farming is done by large corporations exploiting migrant
| labor and blasting the earth with chemicals to induce low
| quality substances that resemble vegetables and grains but lack
| almost all the nutrition. If we stopped today it would take a
| generation to make the soil independently viable again.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Large scale mass farming as a consequence of consolidation is
| also responsible for the massive reduction in insects and
| birdlife biodiversity. Basically, miles upon miles of
| monoculture, that's a food desert for the insects, and the
| birds don't have any habitat as there are no bushes, no
| shade, nothing. And on top of _that_ come the issues with
| deadly pesticides that kill off bees and other pollinators
| and leach into groundwater.
|
| People keep asking me why I'm so strongly opposed to GMO in
| food, outside of stuff like Golden Rice. The reason is that
| we can't trust Big Ag to not do the wrong thing: for one,
| there are serious questions on monopolies and dependence of
| farmers, even entire nations in the end upon suppliers, and
| it's almost exclusively about introducing resistence against
| pesticides, with the aforementioned effects on biodiversity.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Government _could_ easily do something about this.
|
| You could just make a law that farms will be ranked by some
| biodiversity metric - for example, how many unique species
| of plant and animal were found by an inspector on an annual
| inspection. Any farm in the bottom 50% of rankings would
| need to pay perhaps 1% of revenue as an extra fee/fine for
| being insufficiently wildlife friendly.
|
| Clearly people will game this metric, but most ways to fake
| having hundreds of species of animal on your farm are good
| for wild animals too.
| myshpa wrote:
| Just 1% of revenue for being insufficiently wildlife
| friendly? That's laughable.
|
| https://xkcd.com/1338/
|
| https://www.reuters.com/graphics/GLOBAL-
| ENVIRONMENT/INSECT-A...
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/07/insec
| t-d...
|
| We can't have animal agriculture and feed 10 billion
| people.
|
| https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471
|
| We would need more than 5 Earths to feed everyone a
| version of the American diet.
|
| https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainabil
| ity...
|
| We don't have those extra Earths.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I suspect a 1% of revenue fee for being insufficiently
| wildlife friendly would have a huge impact.
|
| For many businesses, 1% can be the difference between
| profit and loss, and if slight adjustments to farming
| practice can get them some biodiversity and save them a
| 1% fee, they will.
| jinkiesScoob wrote:
| [dead]
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| > it's "the farmers,"
|
| No, it's "the shareholders". Large corporations don't care
| about farming, only making money. They just happen to also
| farm.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Yes. But the political force is "the farmers."
|
| Guess who is behind "the children?" Yes, the shareholders
| as well.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Most agri land is also used to grow crops for animals for a
| tiny return on the calories fed to them (tropic levels).
|
| We could get serious about that if we decide to get serious
| about agri land use, deforestation, soil depletion, etc.
| pard68 wrote:
| Totally possible to raise animals without this though.
| There is a massive percentage of the land that cannot grow
| much other than grasses and shrubs. Animals can convert
| that to calories we can consume, leaving more biologically
| diverse land available for other species.
|
| The issue is that animals raised on pasture need more land
| and more time, which equals more money. It's cheaper to
| raise animals on what amounts to junk food (soy, corn,
| legumes).
|
| We raise and sell pork, chicken, eggs, and dairy products
| that never eat anything that our own land doesn't produce
| (grass/nuts/native fruit). But my hogs grow over a year not
| six months, my chickens don't lay in the winter, and my
| cows don't produce 10+ gallons per day. My business is only
| sustainable because of people who care for quality of
| cheaper quantity.
| myshpa wrote:
| > massive percentage of the land that cannot grow much
| other than grasses and shrubs. Animals can convert that
| to calories we can consume
|
| 80% of all agricultural land for 18% of calories. It's an
| area the size of both Americas.
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-
| Land...
|
| If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce
| global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
|
| Given that we're in the sixth mass extinction, and animal
| species have seen 70% decline in last 50 years, we have
| to reverse the trend.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almos
| t-7...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
|
| That "marginal land" should be reforested instead and
| nature restored.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4
|
| The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food
| production on land
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01448-4
|
| Humans are driving one million species to extinction -
| with agriculture
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/
|
| Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat
| consumption
|
| > My business is only sustainable because of people who
| care for quality of cheaper quantity
|
| Your business might be. Animal agriculture isn't.
|
| https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471
|
| Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits
| may be achievable
|
| A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based
| diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming
| practices and technologies are required to feed 10
| billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds.
| pard68 wrote:
| My point was simple that you can do that while still
| raising animals for food. They taste great, have a wealth
| of nutrients, and they can improve the ground they are on
| at the same time.
| myshpa wrote:
| > They taste great
|
| Sure, if you're ok with ignoring everything else.
|
| > have a wealth of nutrients
|
| But nothing that we couldn't get from plants.
|
| > and they can improve the ground they are on at the same
| time
|
| They can. But forest would do it too, and better.
| Climate-wise it's not a win.
|
| https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-
| and-co...
|
| Grass-fed beef isn't necessarily better for the
| environment than beef from CAFOs. While grass-fed systems
| offer benefits like soil health, they often require more
| land, potentially leading to deforestation. They can also
| be less efficient in terms of resource use and have
| variable effects on carbon sequestration. A comprehensive
| assessment considering land use efficiency, resource
| consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions is essential to
| fully understand the environmental impact of different
| beef production methods.
|
| https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-
| or-...
|
| "This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a
| climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors
| to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising
| animal production and consumption, whatever the farming
| system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse
| gas release and contributing to changes in land use.
|
| 'Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries
| want to do something positive for the climate,
| maintaining their current consumption levels but simply
| switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating
| less meat, of all types, is.'"
| hgomersall wrote:
| Without meaning to suggest that there's no much better
| ways to raise animals for meat, it's still a fundamental
| truth that the land area needed to support animals is
| much higher than crops. If we were to only eat meat from
| animals that were raised in a biodiversity sustainable
| fashion, we'd all have to eat far less meat (which I
| totally support as a flexitarian).
| pard68 wrote:
| I wholeheartedly agree. There is no possible way to raise
| animals the way we do at a scale that can sustain the
| current demand for meat. But at my small scale, I can
| make a profit while matching the sales price of mass-
| produced animal products, and I do that with no
| government subsidies.
|
| My point was merely, there is a middle way, that makes
| better products, cheaply, and more ethically.
| brnt wrote:
| > There is a massive percentage of the land that cannot
| grow much other than grasses and shrubs.
|
| Things may seem that way since those areas have been
| cultivated since prehistory, but this is not correct in
| general. Also, commercial fields (aka green concrete) and
| naturally grazed steppe/savannah are very different.
| pard68 wrote:
| Yes, I am in favor of doing our best to return America's
| savannahs back to their previous state, though that state
| was not quite "wild" as you rightly point out, as Native
| Americans tended to the land and practiced regular
| burning of both the forests, savannahs, and plains.
| Likewise, bison did a huge part and sadly they cannot do
| that huge part anymore. But we can still get the land
| back to something healthier for everyone.
|
| My cattle (Jerseys, I do not raise commercial beef
| cattle) prefer my savannah land. I have approx. 100 acres
| of oak savannah which I have worked hard to restore to
| its former glory. My savannah (I don't call it pasture,
| it's not) is far more productive and biodiverse. I do
| have to remove my herds from it because trees cannot
| handle the constraint weight and trampling of large
| animals, and so I do also have a small 20 acre pasture
| that I keep for the off-time. I also have a 5 acre lot I
| keep for the winter months (Jan-April) so my cattle don't
| destroy dormant plants and so the grasses have time to
| mature in the spring.
| amluto wrote:
| > chelation therapy because her blood had so many heavy metals
| from eating sushi 2-3 a week for a year.
|
| Was this because of a blood test showing levels indicating
| chelation therapy or was this for some other reason? What heavy
| metals? What is the evidence that it came from sushi? What kind
| of fish?
|
| Mercury in fish is partially, but not fully, humanity's fault,
| and the evidence that it's problematic (at least if you're not
| eating whales) is mixed.
|
| For a surprising and fascinating rabbit hole, there are papers
| like this:
|
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-021-12361-7
|
| As far as I can tell, the jury is very much out as to the
| significance of dietary mercury.
| CatWChainsaw wrote:
| Problems without solutions are predicaments to be suffered.
| melling wrote:
| "but things like this to me are a much more pressing issue"
|
| That's what we've been saying for almost half a century.
|
| Guess what, we can do both.
| Ar-Curunir wrote:
| The root cause of both climate change and stuff like this is
| the same: corporate incentives, greed, and deregulation.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| I am sorry but I thought that heavy metal poisoning is due to
| eating fish that eats other fish, thus distilling the heavy
| metals in their own body. i.e. eating shark is worse that
| eating salmon.
|
| Is that not correct? I feel like the post above is completely
| misunderstanding the issue
| LeeroyWasHere wrote:
| Yeah, they're different issues, but similar causes.
|
| I can't remember the exact cycle, but essentially fish kibble
| in farms is made of small fish with heavy metals and farm
| fish that are fatty retain those metals in their fats to a
| much higher rate then other fishes.
|
| And it also ends up in dog food? It gets a little wild when
| your food chain is contaminated.
| myshpa wrote:
| Pesticides are cool. You're talking about bioaccumulation.
| Carnivorous species have a disadvantage.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation
|
| https://www.poisoningchildren.com/blog/2014/02/05/bioaccumu
| l...
|
| "... because of the toxins dolphins accumulate in the
| oceans we have polluted, their uterine environment and
| breast milk are so toxic that it kills their first-borns.
| Later-born offspring have a better chance ..."
|
| "Children who breastfed were much more likely to get
| leukemia before the age of two when their mothers had been
| exposed to pesticides. And in turn, breastfeeding is one of
| the few measures that may provide women protection from
| breast cancer, possibly because the toxicants pass out of
| the breast fat with the milk"
| cma wrote:
| A simple solution to keep using pesticides and polluting
| the ocean may be switch human babies to formula, switch
| dolphin babies to human pumped milk, solving the cancer
| issues and the dolphin first-born problem except for the
| dolphin uterine environment which could possibly be fixed
| with cane toads.
| manicennui wrote:
| Tuna is really bad in this regard but also very popular in
| sushi.
| zug_zug wrote:
| Yes fish bioaccumulate heavy metals (mainly mercury)
| particularly tuna, still
|
| Much (an estimated 40%) of the mercury that eventually finds
| its way into fish originates with coal-burning power plants
| and chlorine production plants.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish
| bobsaget81 wrote:
| [flagged]
| ACV001 wrote:
| why did they invent this word "lobbying" when it has to be called
| to what it is - corruption.
| gruez wrote:
| Lobbying: >In politics, lobbying or advocacy, is the act of
| lawfully attempting to influence the actions, policies, or
| decisions of government officials
|
| Corruption: >Corruption is a form of dishonesty or a criminal
| offense which is undertaken by a person or an organization
| which is entrusted in a position of authority, in order to
| acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one's personal
| gain.
|
| There's nothing intrinsically wrong with companies trying to
| influence government policies. It's only a problem when
| government officials abuse their office for personal gain (eg.
| taking bribes). In this case it's not really obvious that such
| improper behavior has occurred, other than a vague kneejerk
| reaction of "pesticides bad, therefore the only possible reason
| why the regulators approved it was that they were corrupt".
| rockinghigh wrote:
| Lobbying just means advocating for your interests by trying to
| influence people in power. It's part of democracy.
| lucidguppy wrote:
| funny how people with more money get more democracy - and
| people with less money get the end of a baton.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-03 23:01 UTC)