From ccof@igc.apc.org Wed May 25 09:14:42 1994 Date: 24 May 94 12:33 PDT From: Brian Baker To: sustag-public@twosocks.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Organic Food ** On May 19, 1994 by lhom@OCF.Berkeley.EDU in cdp:alt.sustainabl ** ** responded to Brian Baker : ** >> >>Study this one carefully, folks. It's the classic logical fallacy of the "False >>Dichotomy." To answer your parenthetical question, Lowell, "organic" has come to >>mean food grown without most synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides. > IMHO, the real false dichotomy here is that "there exist two kinds of farmers: > organic farmers and farmers who use nasty chemicals". As far as I'm concerned, > 7 applications of rotenone-pyrethrum are at least as nasty as two applications > of imidan [ . . . ] Another false dichotomy. What crop are you talking about? I don't know a single organic farmer in California who uses seven sprays a year of rotenone/pyrethrum. Given the high cost of such a program, a grower who is on such a treadmill wouldn't last long in the competitive world of organic farming. Most organic farmers in California maintain a habitat of beneficial insects, sanitation, cultural control, codling moth granulosis virus (now commercially available, I understand), and maybe one ryania spray a season for a knockdown. > (NYSAES study comparing their effectiveness). And,The data show that > natural chemicals are just as carcinogenic as synthetic ones. That's pretty > nasty in my book. 1) What data? 2) Why add to the background levels of natural carcinogens by adding synthetic ones? Organic farmers don't merely substitute natural nasties for synthetic ones. See my longer response below. -- **************************************************************************** * Lou Hom * "All folks are family." * * lhom@ocf.berkeley.edu * -- John Saponara * **************************************************************************** From ccof@igc.apc.org Wed May 25 09:18:43 1994 Date: 24 May 94 22:06 PDT From: Brian Baker To: sustag-public@twosocks.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Pesticides in Organic Farming /* On May 20, 1994 lhom@OCF.Berkeley.EDU 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 lhom@ocf.berkeley.edu > > 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." * > * lhom@ocf.berkeley.edu * -- 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 ccof@igc.apc.org