Glyphosate and Prop 65

The latest story in the glyphosate saga is that it will now be put on California’s “Prop 65 List”. What is this Prop 65 list? It is a list of all chemicals the public may be exposed to in California that may cause cancer or birth defects. This list was born from the ballot initiative passed in 1986 called “The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Substances Act”. The section of the act that cause the list to be made was the part that prohibited business from knowingly exposing the public to toxic substances without giving clear and reasonable warning. Products are required to carry a warning and business are required to post signs clearly stating the warning that substances known to cause cancer or birth defects are present. Any chemical that has a 1 in 100,000 chance of causing cancer over a 70-year period or birth defects or other reproductive harm in two ways are required to be listed. Signs are everywhere in California and most people don’t even notice them. Any place that sells coffee has a sign as there are chemicals in coffee that are listed. One of my favorite signs is this one below. Clearly they are not much of a concern to most people.

disney_sign

California does not do any of its own research to determine if chemicals meet this criteria so they have a system of reviewing research done by other organizations to figure out what chemicals should be listed. There are four ways a chemical can be listed and those can be found at California’s OEHHA site. The criteria that put glyphosate on the list is the first one, “At a minimum, the list must contain chemicals identified by reference in Labor Code section 6382(b)(1) or (d).  Labor Code section 6382(b)(1) incorporates chemicals identified by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as causing cancer in humans or laboratory animals.” Because the IARC listed glyphosate as a “class 2A carcinogen” California was compelled by regulation to put glyphosate on the Prop 65 list. Monsanto sued the State of California mainly on the merits of the scientific evidence, or lack thereof, that glyphosate was a carcinogen, but since the Prop 65 regulation doesn’t address the merits of the research, just that it is on a qualified list, Monsanto lost that battle. If it is on the IARC list, it is on the Prop 65 list.

But did Monsanto have cause to doubt the IARC listing? There is certainly plenty of suspicion on the process the IARC went through on making their determination. Faulty science reviews and cherry picking which data to include along with facts about members on the review team being tied to anti-GMO activist groups.  David Zaruk, an EU science communication specialist has written extensively on this subject and even was a victim of censorship from some EU outlets because of what he uncovered about what the IARC was doing. You can find a full review of his writings on this issue on his site the Risk Monger. I’ll give a summary below.

There are many more scientific bodies that do not agree with the IARC findings of glyphosate being carcinogenic. Three other WHO agencies, The International Programme on Chemical Safety, The WHO Core Assessment Group and WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Safety all disagree with the IARC on this issue (there was also the mysteriously disappearing EPA review that was posted and then pulled that also disagreed with the IARC findings. No one seem to know what happened to that report). Two other EU agencies that European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the German Institute for Risk Assessment (the BfR – responsible for managing the EU’s glyphosate risk assessment) have also come to the opposite view on glyphosate from the IARC. These two agencies do risk assessments. They looked at all the data available, asked for more data to fill data gaps, and then concluded that the herbicide could be safely managed and did not pose a risk to human health.

On the other side, IARC doesn’t do risk management but merely decides whether a substance can be considered as a carcinogen. But in their process on reviewing glyphosate they already had the conclusion they wanted decided upon before they started the review process. Thus they only used data and studies that fit the narrative they wanted to produce. Some of the studies they used were even discredited by scientific peer review as being flawed and providing very poor conclusions. Thus they came to the conclusion that glyphosate was a hazard and needed to be banned. “Risk management is the reduction of exposures to known hazards. The scientific community (including EFSA and the BfR) has largely determined that glyphosate is a minimal hazard (low toxicity) whose exposure can be easily managed so that we (farmers and consumers) can enjoy the benefits of better agricultural yields. IARC feels there is a hazard and it needs to be restricted”, concludes David Zaruk in his summary of the situation.

So where does this leave glyphosate and California’s Prop 65 list? Well, for now it stays on the list. If the pressure on the IARC to remove glyphosate from their list prevails and they pull it from their list California can decide to take it off the Prop 65 list. How will being on the Prop 65 list affect the products that contain glyphosate? Well if the traffic at Disneyland and Starbucks is any indication of the effects of something being on the Prop 65 list, I’d say sales of Roundup won’t be affected too much. But having it on the list could be a focus point for activist group looking for reasons to ban its use. California seems to be on a track for limiting pesticide use based on hazard alone. Managing risk seems to have gone out the window as more regulation is based on fear instead of a reasoned, scientific based foundation. When the country as a whole wants to get back to relying on science to make policy and regulation maybe the tides will turn.

Advertisements

Pesticide Fear Mongering continues on social media

Two headlines are traveling the social media circuit recently that continue to use non-scientific evaluations of pesticide use to try to shape the cultural myth that pesticides are inherently bad for everyone. The first one is the continued publication by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) of their so called Dirty Dozen list, a list that supposedly warns consumers of the produce with the highest pesticide residues. This list has been debunked by peer reviewed analysis to show that the methodology they use to rank the selected produce has no scientific backing. Even the very report the EWG says it uses to generate the data for their list, the USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP,) states that the “… summary shows that, overall, pesticide residues found on foods tested are at levels below the tolerances set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and do not pose risk to consumers’ health. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has concluded that pesticide resi220px-Warning2Pesticidesdues pose no risk of concern for infants and children.” Nutritional experts continue to say that increasing the consumption of fruits and vegetable decreases the risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity. This includes a recent study titled UCL study finds new evidence linking fruit and vegetable consumption with lower mortality. Studies have shown that conventional and organic produce have the same healthy outcomes for consumers. Why does the EWG continue to scare consumers away from healthy food choices? Because it fits the narrative they want to promote. They do not seem to care that studies are finding that their scare tactic are doing more harm than good, especially for low income shoppers who have far few food choices than other income groups.

The second is an article titled “UN experts denounce ‘myth’- pesticides are necessary to feed the world” published by The Guardian and picked up by a number of anti-pesticide activist sites. This report is yet another “white paper” put out as a UN source that is nothing more than an opinion piece. It doesn’t even quote or review any of the official UN FAO or scientific literature from any UN committees. It continues in the same way as the EWG piece, to come to a conclusion first and work backwards, using cherry picked peer reviewed studies, to find information to justify the headline. In his evaluation of the article, David Zaruk, an EU science communication specialists writes “The “Pesticides are a myth” report has no authors and was submitted in the name of a rapporteur who has no experience in agriculture. And the Guardian published an article without any interest in analyzing its foundations or sources – just quotes the “UN report”. It doesn’t look at the FAO or basic science.” Lumping all pesticides and all farming types into a story trying to say that the benefits of pesticides are a “myth” just doesn’t explore in depth the vast literature available that is contrary to the thesis of the article. The article even draws conclusions that are contrary to the sources it cites. “It is a myth,” said Hilal Elver, the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to food. “Using more pesticides is nothing to do with getting rid of hunger. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), we are able to feed 9 billion people today. Production is definitely increasing, but the problem is poverty, inequality and distribution.”
In a Facebook discussion digging into the articles references one commenter says, “Production is increasing because pesticides have enabled it. Their references don’t back their claims.” He then goes on to detail the conflicts in many of the cited reference and what the article is saying.

Fear of pesticides has been around a long time. Even before Racheal Carson’s “Silent Spring” people were questioning their wide spread use in farming. But questioning their use and using science to find out what the problems were and how to fix them has only strengthened the crop protection industry. Now trained professionals with expertise in Integrated Pest Management have the tools to carefully evaluate and choose the right crop protection product needed and have the information to evaluate and mediate health and environmental concerns. That knowledge is growing all the time. ‘Of course, there are always risks associated with using such chemicals, but the answer is to heavily regulate the industry and increase transparency, not to ban their use. The scientific evidence time and again demonstrates the benefits for using pesticides far outweighs the risks.’ – Professor Kathleen Lewis, Professor of Agricultural Chemistry at University of Hertfordshire’s Department of Human and Environmental Sciences (HES) and Research Leader for the Agriculture and Environment Research Unit (AERU). Crop protection tools are getting better all the time. They are becoming more environmentally friendly and safer for workers. New technologies are developing products that are more selective, targeting the pest and leaving other flora and fauna in our fields intact.

It is important for those in the agricultural industry to speak up and tell the truth about pesticides and their use so that the continued mantra of the “evil pesticide” is not the narrative that sticks in the minds of our consumers. People are susceptible to fear on topics they know very little about. Those of us that have the expertise on these matters should keep ourselves informed and be willing to engage people in conversations that will help educate and ease people’s fears. Acknowledge the reality of their fears and do not use scorn to put them down as that only further entrenches them in their position. Once you understand why they have the fears they do you can then empathize and tailor your response in a why they will be more accepting to the information.

Further reading:

Is Conventional Produce Dirty? No, But the Marketing Tactics Of Big Organic Are

Anti-Ag U.N. Report Written by Attorneys Argues for Big Ag

3 Reasons The EWG’s “Dirty Dozen” Is Still a Dirty Lie

The Perils of Anti-Pesticide Hysteria

For the Benefit of Consumers, It’s Time to Promote Positive, Reassuring Information

No, The UN Did Not Dismiss Pesticides as Unnecessary

Foreign Invasion threat to farming

In honor of #NationalInvasiveSpeciesAwarenessWeek

A Plant Doctor's House Calls

Creeping MenaceForeign terrorists have been invading our farms and environment for a long time. These terrorists are called Invasive species. An invasive species is a plant or animal that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species); and has a tendency to spread, which is believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy and/or human health. Species that are moved or migrate to an area where they have not been to before can disrupt the ecology of an area because the native species have not evolved to interact with the newcomer. There may be no natural predators to keep the new species in check or the new species may find a food source that has no defense against the newcomer. There are invasive pests that have invaded our forests, waterways, homes and fields.

The following are just a few I’ve chosen to highlight from the USDA APHIS…

View original post 1,461 more words

Why Keep the E.P.A?

dreamstimelarge_8774

On February 3, 2017 Rep. Matt Gaetz [R-FL-1] introduced a bill titled H.R.861 – To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency. There are certainly plenty of people, mainly business owners and some farmers, who are pretty fed up with the layers and layers of regulations and associated paperwork that keeps them from doing the work they want to be doing. Many farmers see some of the EPA’s regulation as vastly overreaching to the point of threatening to put them out of business. Rep. Gaetz wrote in a letter to colleagues about his bill stating that “Our small businesses cannot afford to cover the costs associated with compliance, too often leading to closed doors and unemployed Americans,” and that “It is time to take back our legislative power from the EPA and abolish it permanently.” I certainly do not deny that there are problems regarding how regulations affect people and businesses. The language Gaetz’s bill states that the EPA will terminate at the end of 2018. There seems to be no plan on what happens to all the laws the EPA is currently administrating. There is certainly a lot of uncertainty about the future of the EPA under the current administration. There are many reasons why we should keep the EPA. For a reminder, read Why We Need the EPA. My concern is what will happen to our crop protection industry if the EPA suddenly disappears?

The federal law that directly affects pesticide use is called the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). After World War II there was a sharp increase in chemical use in many industries, including farming. This act was passed back in 1947 and was enacted “to address the growing issue of potential environmental damage and biological health risks associated with such widespread use of insecticides”1. FIFRA’s basic function is to “govern the registration, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides in the United States2. The original act required anyone selling pesticides in interstate commerce to register them with the USDA and there was very little required to get a product registered.

In the early 1960’s after the break through publication of Rachael Carson’s book Silent Spring, many people became more aware of the problems pesticides were causing to the environment and potential hazard to human health as well. Many issues started to get noticed, not just environmental and threats to public health but also safety issues for agricultural workers. When the EPA was formed in 1970 the administration of FIFRA was moved to that agency.

Making sure that our crop protection products are safe and effective is an essential role that the EPA has for farmers. We need products that are proven to work, that they can be used safely by our workers and, also,  around our homes, since many of us live on our farms. dreamstime_xxl_83065129We need to make sure our products are safe for our consumers and that our land and water are safe for the future generation that we will be passing our farms down to, not to mention just being good stewards of the land in general. These are all goals that farmers and the EPA have in common. The data the EPA collects and reviews from registrants and the data that the agency produces through their own scientific reviews are essential in order to defend the use of products, easing fears made by those that make false claims of health and environmental harm, and justifying the need to stop using products that no longer fit the safety goals stated above. Without the science done at the EPA, crop protection products are at risk from lawsuits by groups trying to ban any pesticide use and new products that we need will not be able to get registration.

FIFRA does not mandate that the EPA should be the agency in charge of administering the act but it is uniquely qualified to do so. The program could be moved to the FDA or back to the USDA but those agencies are not set up to do the environmental science needed to evaluate crop protection products.  Since science being done on air, water and other areas the EPA regulates ties in closely to all aspects of farming, keeping the regulation of pesticides at the EPA would keep the science needed all under the same agency and allow for better communication and shared resources. If anything the EPA needs more funding, upgraded technology to do better toxicology screening faster, more scientists with the needed expertise and, hopefully, more with a background in crop protection and agriculture.

Another idea of getting the federal government out of what the EPA does and let the states run their own programs is also highly problematic. Now the EPA does the bulk of the work sifting through the data and approving product registration, safety and use regulations. Many states do look at the EPA registration packages and make changes for their local conditions but if each state had to do the entire task of registering a product the costs would be astronomical and the potential for conflicting regulations across state lines could make interstate commerce of crop protecrtion products unmanageable.

Science is the backbone of every aspect of agriculture. We rely on it for almost everything we do.  We should be working on making the EPA better at what they do, not getting rid of it entirely. The EPA has plenty of experience in place to continue to do the work we need in the area of crop protection products. Regulations should be based on sound science but not just when the regulations fall in our favor. We can’t defend sound science on one hand when we are trying to save a product under registration and throw it out when a regulation restricts us. A hearing held February 7th by the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology promised to focus on “Making the Environmental Protection Agency great again” got off on the wrong foot, in my opinion, when the committee chair Lamar Smith suggested that the agency had “relied on questionable science based on nonpublic information that could not be reproduced, a basic requirement of the scientific method” 3. Trying to label science you may not agree with as “questionable” in order to shape policy is what is being done and threatens to be the “nail in the coffin” for the EPA.

Limiting the type of science the EPA can use by suggesting they are using “questionable science” and not following the basics of the scientific method because it can’t be “reproduced” will limit the science needed by the EPA. Only using public information would greatly limit what science can be used or evaluated. Only using science that can be “reproduced” also limits science as it does not allow for scientists to look at changes in methodology or allow for other scientific designs to be used to study the same issue. Not all lab studies can be reproduced, especially if you are trying to transfer what you see in the lab to field conditions.

Weakening the EPA is not in our industry’s best interest. Changes in how regulations are made should be focused on using the science with local stakeholders to craft programs and best use practices to make sure all of the goals of safe farming for agriculture and the environment are met. We should be looking to strengthen EPA regional offices so that they have the staff and funds needed to work with local stakeholders. Legislation like the Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act4, introduced by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), calling for the closure all of the EPA’s regional offices is not the way forward. Focused, targeted, well thought out programs with input from all sides should be the way forward. People have lost trust that science is being used to make regulations that will benefit them. Only by working together and actually listening to each other can regulators and stakeholders rebuild trust in the system.

Footnotes

  1. History of the EPA.” Wikipedia. Accessed February 09, 2017. .
  2. Summary of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.” EPA. January 10, 2017. Accessed February 09, 2017. .
  3. Harvey, Chelsea. “The hearing was titled, ‘Making EPA great again.’ Scientists are afraid the opposite will happen.” The Washington Post. Accessed February 09, 2017.
  4. H.R.2111 – 114th Congress (2015-2016): Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act of 2015.” H.R.2111 – 114th Congress (2015-2016): Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act of 2015 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress. April 29, 2915. Accessed February 11, 2017.

Harvest is Upon Us

This is the time of year when all the crops are going into harvest. I thought I would share what goes on in some of the crops I works with during this very busy part of the season. At this point most of my work is done. It is report card time and I get to see how well I did keeping the pests low when I see how the product comes off the plants.

Tomatoes: the tomatoes I work with are the processing varieties. These primarily go into paste which is shipped all over the world and used to make all the great tomato products you are familiar with. Some are also used for sliced, diced and whole peeled canned products. They are machined harvested. Workers are on the machine to help sort out the MOT (materials other than tomatoes) and any other thing not wanted to get into the truck. There are drivers for the tractors pulling the trailers through the fields and drivers for the trucks taking the trailers to the plant.

Cantaloupes: These are harvested and either packed in the field or taken to an indoor packing plant. They may be in the field for a number of weeks, picking as the melons become ripe. This video is a good one showing the entire process.

Cotton: This will be harvested in the early fall in my area. My job is to recommend products to apply to get all of the leaves dried and removed from the plant before the crop can be harvested. This video clip from the TV show America’s Heartland shows what comes next.

Almonds: As the nuts dry and open they are ready to be shaken off the tree. Then they continue to dry on the ground and when they are ready they are swept into rows, picked up by a small trailer and loaded into trucks off to the processing plant. Walnuts are also picked in much the same way.

Peaches and Nectarines: This harvest starts in late April and goes all summer. They are hand harvested and the crews move from field to field as the varieties become ripe.

Table grapes are picked and packed in the field.

Raisins can be harvested by hand and laid onto the paper trays on the ground or, as labor becomes more expensive, growers can use machines to shake the grapes off the vines and laid on the paper trays.

Wine grapes are picked much the same as mechanical raisin grapes harvest except they go into the trailers and out to the winery.

Thanks to all the wonderful videos being shared by farmers throughout the state for sharing with everyone what you do. Don’t forget to thank a farmer for your food and clothes.

 

 

The use of some toxic pesticides may be warranted.

Not all pesticides are created equal and some, as we all know, are more toxic than others. The EPA has been reviewing the data on many of the older pesticide categories for some time now and using new guidelines to determine if their uses are still safe.

One active ingredient that is going through this process is Chlorpyrifos. Because of its high mammalian toxicity it is getting a good review. The EPA has made some changes to how this product is being used with its first ruling back in 2000 eliminating all residential uses except for roach bait in protective bait stations. Then back in 2002 it banned the use of the product on tomatoes and made some further restrictions on its use on citrus, tree nuts and other crops. In 2012 the EPA limited the use of chlorpyrifos by lowering application rates and creating no-spray buffer zone requirements.

“Chlorpyrifos can cause cholinesterase inhibition in humans at high enough doses; that is, it can overstimulate the nervous system causing nausea, dizziness, confusion, and at very high exposures (e.g., accidents or major spills), respiratory paralysis and death.”1 Most of the issues with this product has been occupational exposures that applicators would experience and most of those concerns have been addressed through training and strict personal protective equipment requirements.

Why does keeping the use of this product matter for agriculture? Chlorpyrifos is used in corn and soybeans and, because of the large number of acres of these crops, these uses are the largest for this product. Many of these applications are seed treatments, but it is also used on fruits and nut trees, and a limited number of vegetable and row crops as well. Uses have already been restricted as a result of the EPA’s re-registration process. For example, on fruit trees and grapes, it can only be used during the dormant season and on citrus and vegetable crops the harvest intervals have been greatly increased. Most of the foliar application on crops are done because there are pests that are very difficult to control and this product happens to be one of a few that will work. Aphids on asparagus, broccoli, cabbage, and soybeans, as well as leaffooted plant bugs on almonds, are the most common needs for a foliar application I come across. Even though there are other products that can work to control these pests, the lack of products to rotate with means the loss of chlopyrifos runs the risk of developing resistance to those few products faster. “Matthew E. O’Neal, Iowa State University entomologist said when it comes to soybeans there should be some concern about what a chlopyrifos ban could mean in years to come. ‘My concern is if we get into a situation where we have a resistance to the other classes of insecticides used for aphids we’re going to need an alternative,’ he said. ‘Chlorpyrifos is commonly used by farmers for aphids and other pests in soybeans. If one class of insecticide replaces its uses in soybeans, this could increase the likelihood of resistance occurring. In four or five years that’s when you’d start to notice there are is no chlopyrifos and you’re looking for something that works.'”2 This warning holds true for the other critical uses as well. Without the use of chlopyrifos in asparagus for aphids those growers will have a hard time getting a crop to market as many other aphid control products are no longer effective on asparagus aphids.

Knowing that the EPA was reviewing the uses of chlopyrifos and that some concerns (which I will address later) had been brought up, University of California, California Department of Pesticide Regulation and industry stakeholders made a thorough assessment of the critical uses of chlopyrifos in some key crops grown in California and have made some recommendations on how to successfully manage the use of this product. The 198 page document reviews the key uses of chlorpyrifos in four key crops in the state. “The four crops represent $10 billion in annual revenue and cover 2.4 million acres of cropland. During the period of 2002-2012, 61% of the total chlorpyrifos use was recorded on these four crops.”3 The study pointed to an overall decrease in the use of chlorpyrifos with some years showing a slight increase, no doubt due to spikes in pest pressure. These spikes in the amount of product used has caused concern in some areas due to the human and environmental risks associated with chlorpyrifos. Note: since the CDPR report came out a new product to control aphids in alfalfa has been registered and the situation for that crop and chlorpyrifos use has improved.

The major cause for concern now is the previously identified drinking water issues and dealing with a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). This is the petition the court has addressed in determining that the EPA timeline for evaluating the drinking water issue was not adequate. The EPA’s 2014 revised human health risk assessment confirmed a potential risk to drinking water in small watersheds near areas where chlorpyrifos is widely used. These small watersheds are generally less than 40 square miles and in small regions of the country. The examples are outlined in the revised risk assessment. 4 “The 2014 assessment included a refined drinking water assessment for the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast, but not the entire country. The EPA has determined that safe levels of chlorpyrifos may be exceeded for people whose drinking water is derived from certain vulnerable watersheds in parts of the United States.  the EPA is continuing to work on its refined regional drinking water assessment in order to identify those vulnerable watersheds.”5

Can the drinking water issues be addressed without banning all the uses for chlorpyrifos? Since the problem seems to be isolated to small watersheds near well-defined areas of high chlopyrifos use, it seems that other ways to mitigate the problems should be examined. The work published in the CDPR “Chlorpyrifos Critical Use” report shows that a well thought out approach to this problem is achievable. The report outlines uses to focus on and best use practices to hopefully reduce levels of chlopyrifos in surface water that are exceeding tolerances. Research and education are key components of the process. Farmers and those making pest control decisions need to be aware of the potential problems surrounding the use of chlorpyrifos and need to be willing to make decisions that will help keep the product out of local waterways. But in order for such an approach to work, all stakeholders involved must be on board and willing to follow best use practices.

California’s State Water Resources Control Board has surface water monitoring programs in place and have been monitoring water for a number of contaminants including, but not limited to, certain pesticides, such as chlorpyrifos. Their Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program has many years of data showing where contaminants have been found and at what levels. Data since 2006 has shown some improvements in surface water chlorpyrifos contamination but some areas are still showing exceedances, and some of those areas were not involved in the crops mentions in the DPR critical use program. More investigation and outreach seems to be needed.

So what does all this mean for the fate of chlorpyrifos? Unfortunately the regulatory process does not have a good track record for making policy based solely on scientific evidence, and there are many public groups that have very little patience with any attempt to develop programs that will keep pesticides they are not happy with in use. Research, data collection, programs, and outreach all take time and money. Budgets are tight ,and the number of people with expertise in these areas are declining, making resources available to work on these issues very tight. Public distrust of government regulators is on the rise at the same time government continues to cut budgets for the science needed to address these issues. EPA is forced to rely more and more on industry supplied data which increases the public distrust of the current system. The current public comment period for the proposal to revoke the tolerances for chlopyrifos will be over by the end of the year. Stakeholder groups on both sides of the issue are currently sending in their views on the matter. It would be nice to see a measured and thought out approach to making sure this product can still be used where it is needed come out of this process.

Footnotes
1. http://www2.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/chlorpyrifos
2. You’ll Still Have Pesticide Options If Lorsban’s AI is Banned – DTN
3. CDPR Critical Use Report
4. EPA’s revised human health risk assement for chlopyrifos
5. Proposal to Revoke Chlorpyrifos Food Residue Tolerances

 

Thankful for our food

As we prepare our Thanksgiving day feast it may be a good time to reflect on what it takes to get that food to your table. There are many people in many industries that work hard to bring us the abundance of food we have come to take for granted when we go to our local grocery store. As a plant doctor, I will use this post to summarize what my part of the “food chain” contributes to your Thanksgiving feast.

What is on your table?

croplife1

As you can see, without the benefits of crop protection products, organic or conventional, yields would suffer and the abundance of food we rely on would decrease making our Thanksgiving feast much more expensive.

Do you like pie?

croplife3

Plant bugs of all types are very hard to control. Even organic farmers have problems with these pests. Organic pesticides only deter these bugs for a short time making multiple applications necessary to protect the crop. Nasty little buggers!

Modern technology is doing more to increase yields and decrease the amount of pesticides needed to bring food to your table. Not so long ago many of our crop protection chemicals were broad spectrum and applied in pounds per acre. Now they are more targeted to the pest, safer for beneficial insects, safer for workers and applied in oz per acre. Better application techniques make spraying these low rates effective with less impact on the surrounding environment.

Agriculture has many challenges ahead of it to be able to bring more food to a growing population with less land and other resources.

There are still many challenges ahead. Environmental issues to solve. Promises of new technology such and Genetically Modified crops and other new technologies like CRISPer are just a few things science is looking into to make sure everyone on this planet has enough to eat. GMO technology has already  reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68% (from an articled penned by Klumper and Qaim in 2014; a meta study that summarizes his findings of 147 original studies on the impact of GMOs). 
With the help of modern agriculture techniques, hunger is disappearing but we still have a long way to go before the problems of food insecurity disappears as well.
croplife2
As our technology continues to improve, better solutions arise and agriculture continues to tackle the challenges of producing more food with less resources and keeping our environment, workers and families safe and healthy. The more we know the better we do. It is a challenge we take on with pride.