Organic Pesticides Part 2

By Sara Hessenflow Harper

So, I've gotten some interesting feedback on my last post, Organic Farming's Pesticide Problem. As often happens when I write something that challenges the conventional thinking of those who view organic as the ultimate food goal for us all -- I was accused of being merely a paid gun for the (synthetic) chemical industry as a means to dismiss the facts and scientific bits I brought forward for their consideration. To be clear, I don't have clients from the chemical or seed company world and I get no compensation from corporations, or anyone else for that matter for doing this blog. That doesn't mean that I would be opposed to working with them or anyone else, if I like what they are doing regarding sustainability.

What really amuses me about this repeated tactic is that so often it is they (organic extremists) who make outrageous claims about modern, high-tech, highly efficient agriculture with no proof and seemingly, no need to provide any scientific context or support for things they "just know" to be true -- like natural pesticides must be better than synthetic. So often folks who value the system of organic farming seem to value the system itself as the end goal, rather than engaging with the broader agricultural community in support of goals we all share: maintaining a safe, healthy, sustainably grown food supply.

My science-loving husband sent me a great piece from a June 2007 posting in the Tierney Lab, a science blog in the New York Times on the cancer-causing affects of pesticides (organic vs synthetic) and why its so important not to get hung up on these descriptions when looking at safety and sustainability. I highly encourage you to read the full posting by clicking here.

A particularly important excerpt from the NYT science blog:

"Dr. Ames was one of the early heroes of environmentalism. He invented the widely used Ames Test, which is a quick way to screen for potential carcinogens by seeing if a chemical causes mutations in bacteria. . . .

But Dr. Ames began rethinking this war against synthetic chemicals after thousands of chemicals had been subjected to his test. He noticed that plenty of natural chemicals flunked the Ames test. He and Dr. Gold took a systematic look at the chemicals that had been tested on rodents. They found that about half of natural chemicals tested positive for carcinogencity, the same proportion as the synthetic chemicals. Fruits, vegetables, herbs and spices contained their own pesticides that caused cancer in rodents. The toxins were found in apples, bananas, beets, Brussel sprouts, collard greens, grapes, melons, oranges, parsley, peaches — the list went on and on [........]

He and Dr. Gold note that “many ordinary foods would not pass the regulatory criteria used for synthetic chemicals,” but they’re not advocating banning broccoli or avoiding natural pesticides in foods that cause cancer in rodents. Rather, they suggest that Americans stop worrying so much about synthetic chemicals:

Regulatory efforts to reduce low-level human exposures to synthetic chemicals because they are rodent carcinogens are expensive; they aim to eliminate minuscule concentrations that now can be measured with improved techniques. These efforts are distractions from the major task of improving public health through increasing scientific understanding about how to prevent cancer (e.g., what aspects of diet are important), increasing public understanding of how lifestyle influences health, and improving our ability to help individuals alter their lifestyles."

The point here, again, is that the distinction between "natural" and "synthetic" is ultimately far less important than what these chemicals do and how they act on us and the environment. To say that something is inherently better because it is natural is to really misunderstand nature, and chemistry.

Nature is not some warm fuzzy thing just waiting for big bad people to mess up. Nature is a system with many complexities -- and humans are part of nature, not outside of it. We do ourselves and the planet a huge disservice by believing that something as complicated as our natural system can be reduced to moral, human-created terms such as "good" or "bad." There are positive natural chemicals that can be used in ways that reduce the consequences we as humans find objectionable, but that is a far cry from giving everything that is "natural" a free pass from critical analysis. At the same time, just because human beings can make a chemical doesn't mean that its automatically a good or bad thing.

Critical analysis and scientific study, my friends, is the only way that we can be sure that we are making progress and to get a better understanding for the side-effects or consequences that just simply are a part of working within a complex system. Let's agree that no category is off limits from the scrutiny of study, ok?

I mentioned in my previous post that some of the natural pesticides used in organic farming can be quite toxic. Upon doing a little more research on the chemical of rotenone I discovered the EPA banned its use as an accepted pesticide for organic farming, or any other kind of farming a few years ago. Imagine that! In fact, a Feb 2011 National Institutes of Health (NIH) study found:

"New research shows a link between use of two pesticides, rotenone and paraquat [actually a non-specific herbicide], and Parkinson's disease. People who used either pesticide developed Parkinson's disease approximately 2.5 times more often than non-users."

So, prior to EPA banning rotenone, for example, organic farm workers pulling weeds where this natural chemical had been applied may now face a double than average risk of developing Parkinson's Disease!! This is a real occupational health threat, mostly because organic farming is more labor intensive - but you don't see big environmentalist ad campaigns out about it because . . . it's a natural chemical, used by traditional peoples, no less.

Just as there can be unintended consequences from using human-made chemicals, so too are there consequences for assuming the superiority of one chemical over another because it is made by nature to kill bugs, rather than by people -- to do the same thing.

When we apply critical analysis to all chemical use -- natural, or synthetic, we have the best chance of avoiding or minimizing unwanted side effects from their use. We are also in a better position to see the trade-offs that could come with making the choice to not use these chemicals at all -- which would likely be far less food production at a time when the world needs far more. Encouraging a policy choice with such big implications deserves more research and less automatic assumption.