Nasty news about Pesticides, etc. up to 1,000 times more toxic

Discussion in 'Food Plots for Wildlife' started by shedder, Mar 9, 2018.

  1. shedder

    shedder Active Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    Cdn Zone 5 (US 5a)
    Wow, not good.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180308120621.htm
    Unregulated chemicals present in commercial formulations of pesticides could provide a missing link between pesticide exposure and observed negative outcomes.
    Credit: © Viesturs Kalvans / Fotolia


    New regulations are needed to protect people and the environment from toxic pesticide ingredients that are not currently subject to safety assessments. This is the conclusion of the first comprehensive review of gaps in risk assessments for "adjuvants" -- ingredients added to pesticide formulations to enhance the function or application of the active ingredient. Ignoring the potential dangers of other ingredients in commonly used commercial pesticides leads to inaccuracies in the safety profile of the pesticide solution, as well as confusion in scientific literature on pesticide effects, finds the review published in Frontiers in Public Health.

    "Exposure to environmental levels of some of these adjuvant mixtures can affect non-target organisms -- and even can cause chronic human disease," says Dr Robin Mesnage from King's College London, who co-wrote the review with Dr Michael Antoniou. "Despite this, adjuvants are not currently subject to an acceptable daily intake and are not included in the health risk assessment of dietary exposures to pesticide residues."

    Pesticides are a mixture of chemicals made up of an active ingredient -- the substance that kills or repels a pest -- along with a mixture of other ingredients that help with the application or function of the active ingredient. These other ingredients are known as adjuvants, and include dyes, anti-foaming agents and surfactants.

    Regulatory tests for pesticide safety are currently only done on the active ingredient, which assumes the other ingredients have no effects. This means the full toxicity of a pesticide formulation -- including those used in both agriculture and domestic gardens -- is not shown.

    "Currently, the health risk assessment of pesticides in the European Union and in the United States focuses almost exclusively on the active ingredient," explains Dr Mesnage. "Despite the known toxicity of adjuvants, they are regulated differently from active principles, with their toxic effects being generally ignored."

    Based on a review of current pesticide literature, the authors describe how unregulated chemicals present in commercial formulations of pesticides could provide a missing link between pesticide exposure and observed negative outcomes.

    The researchers focused on glyphosate-based herbicides, the most used pesticide worldwide. They point out that this weed killer has so many different adjuvant formulations that a safety test of one weed killer does not test the safety of another.

    "Studies comparing the toxicity of commercial weed-killer formulations to that of glyphosate alone have shown that several formulations are up to 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate on human cells. We believe that the adjuvants are responsible for this additional toxic effect," says Dr Mesnage.

    The authors also highlight neonicotinoid insecticides -- strongly suspected to be involved in the collapsing of bee colonies -- as another example of adjuvant toxicity affecting non-target organisms. An adjuvant used in these insecticides to increase the penetration of the active ingredient has been shown to cause varying toxic effects in bees. On top of this, residues of the toxin have also been found in honey, pollen and beeswax produced by contaminated bees.

    The authors hope their review will stimulate discussion on the toxicity of commonly used pesticides and encourage more thorough regulations.

    "Testing of whole pesticide formulations instead of just active ingredients alone would create a precautionary approach, ensuring that the guidance value for the pesticide is valid for the worst-case exposure scenario," says Dr Mesnage.

    Their findings have already had a considerable impact. The European Food Safety Authority is now reassessing the validity of pesticide risk assessment in the EU, and authors hope that this reassessment can extend to entire commercial formulations of pesticides and their other ingredients.
     
  2. Smallplot

    Smallplot Active Member

    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    Pike County IL
    Well everyone is allowed their opinion.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Cap'n likes this.
  3. DIY

    DIY Member

    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Interesting review with a conclusion that I think merits legitimate concern. I hope science continues to gather data on this. The testing of whole pesticide formulations makes a lot of sense to me.
     
  4. DrDirtNap

    DrDirtNap Active Member

    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    95
    Location:
    North Mississippi
    Hardiness Zone:
    7
    As stated above...everybody is allowed their opinion.
     
  5. DIY

    DIY Member

    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    There’s a lot more to the article than opinion.
     
  6. X-farmerdan

    X-farmerdan Active Member

    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    235
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia, USDA Zone 7b
    I spent the first 15 years of my young career working with herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides. I've studied formulations, read the registration research, and have wondered how some of the chemicals we've used in pursuit of our noble goals were ever allowed on the market. Many others present acceptable risks, in my opinion.

    I didn't read the article. Make your own conclusions, but my advice would be for you to take reasonable precautions when using any chemicals. And, don't be too quick to be so sure of the safety of any one of them. Some will turn out to be miracles. Some will prove to be deadly. Without vigilance we'll never know which one is which.
     
  7. Smallplot

    Smallplot Active Member

    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    Pike County IL
    The article eludes to some testing taking place in the UK with no specifics. Like levels found or even exactly what toxins were found. So yes I see this as nothing more than opinion at this point of time.

    Too much of anything can be toxic, O2, H2O, salt, heck even a good time.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Chainsaw likes this.
  8. Bowman

    Bowman Member

    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    USDA Zone 4b
    Hardiness Zone:
    5
    I will add something. Have you researched Ray Archuleta, the "soil guy"?
    Soil is a living organism.
    Short version.
    How Glyphosate Has Decimated the Medicinal Value of Food

    In 1976, glyphosate was introduced. This is the active ingredient in a vast majority of weed killers on the market today, including Roundup®. However, this chemical does not selectively kill weeds. Any plant sprayed with this chemical will die — which is why Monsanto and other pesticide producers came up with the idea of creating herbicide-resistant plants through genetic engineering.

    "It's worthwhile noting why it kills plants," Bush says. "Glyphosate blocks an enzyme pathway … called the shikimate pathway. These enzymes are responsible for making some of the most important compounds in food [including] ringed carbon structures, such as tryptophan, that are the backbone of hormones. If you take away tryptophan from the plant chain or the plant kingdom by killing this pathway in bacteria and plants, the plant cannot make these essential signaling molecules … It wipes out about four to six of the essential amino acids, which are the building blocks for all proteins in your body … There are only 26 amino acids. You take away four to six of those [and] you just lost a huge percentage of biology. But that's just the beginning of the problem that we're talking about in nutrition. This is, I really believe, the answer to why we were feeding all these healthy foods to our patients [yet] not seeing health benefits: There's a family of compounds called alkaloids … [When you] remove the alkaloids from food, what you see is the disease burst we have going on across so many organ systems in our bodies. There's a family of [alkaloids] that are anti-parasitic … [others] are antidiabetic … anticancer … antihypertensive … anti-mood disorder … antiasthma, anti-eczema type of compounds. You go through the list of alkaloids and [realize that if you add a] chemical to our food chain that wipes out the production of [alkaloids] … we [lose] the medicinal quality of food that has existed for thousands of years … [By using glyphosate] we robbed the soil and the plant from the ability to make these essential medicinal [compounds]."
    According to Monsanto, glyphosate cannot affect human health because humans do not have the shikimate pathway. However, human gut bacteria do, as do soil bacteria and plants. Moreover, the human body cannot make its own alkaloids and essential amino acids. You must get these compounds from plant foods that feed off bacteria in the soil.

    Glyphosate Is a Major Health Threat
    Glyphosate also disrupts intercellular communication, which is at the heart of virtually all disease. To understand this, you first need to understand that bacteria, fungi and other microbes work in concert — there are relationships at play where certain ones help keep others in check. Unfortunately, since the discovery of penicillin we've essentially waged war against bacteria, with antibiotics often considered cure-alls by doctors and patients alike.

    An estimated 7.7 million pounds of antibiotics are prescribed to Americans every year, equaling over 800 prescriptions for every 1,000 individuals. Since the 1960s, antibiotics have also been added to animal feed to promote faster weight gain. An estimated 300 milligrams of antibiotics are used for every kilogram (2.2 pounds) of beef produced, totaling nearly 30 million pounds per year.

    In addition, farmers also use 5 billion pounds (over 2 billion kilograms) of glyphosate per year, worldwide, making glyphosate weed killers the most prevalent antibiotic on the planet.

    In fact, that was part of the original glyphosate patent, stating its function to kill soil bacteria.

    More here.

    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/...tracellular-communication-affects-health.aspx

     
  9. Smallplot

    Smallplot Active Member

    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    Pike County IL
    Or is it that no one goes out and collects their own food to have fresh meal after meal without being processed and void of all good things? Seems everywhere we turn people are just eating crappy things. The fast food industry is booming, as can be seen every day driving past a fast food joint at lunch and supper. How everything we lean towards eating is loaded with processed food because people want food fast even at the nicer restaurants, There are even studies showing how bad grains are for the body but it is one of the most consumed foods today irregardless of how it may effect the body.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  10. Bowman

    Bowman Member

    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    USDA Zone 4b
    Hardiness Zone:
    5
    No argument there. I was more focused on the relationship between promoting soil health and the plants. I saw a guy on Glenn Beck drink glyphosate once. I do not recommend vitamin G.
     
    Smallplot likes this.
  11. shedder

    shedder Active Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    Cdn Zone 5 (US 5a)
    1. Robin Mesnage, Michael N. Antoniou. Ignoring Adjuvant Toxicity Falsifies the Safety Profile of Commercial Pesticides. Frontiers in Public Health, 2018; 5 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00361
    Specifics are in the source link under the article\newsrelease, which references 65 other papers.
     
  12. Smallplot

    Smallplot Active Member

    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    Pike County IL
    And again, the average household is filled with numerous known cancer causing substances over what used to be. This is everything from countertops to flooring to furniture. Everything from a water bottle to your cell phone contains toxins. Are you going to move to a house free of these just because something may make a difference and which would likely make more of a difference?

    I also watch some bee keeper channels and find it interesting how some seasoned bee keepers link colony collapse to the use of medications used to rid the bees of the thing they are blaming as carriers. Some say the bees are not able to develop a natural immunity, for lack of a better term, from the hive infestations leading to the collapse of the colony.

    Not to get too far off base but behind every scientific study there is a theory which someone had to develop based on opinion. Funny thing about science, not too many set out to disprove their theory, opinion, but rather to prove it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Cap'n and MarkDarvin like this.
  13. shedder

    shedder Active Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    Cdn Zone 5 (US 5a)
    Opinion = "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."

    The paper is based on experiment and evidence but I didn't post the article to argue but to inform those that might be interested.

    Human nature, funding, and career pressure does tend to bias papers to positive results, which is a problem, but not as big as opinion.
     
  14. X-farmerdan

    X-farmerdan Active Member

    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    235
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia, USDA Zone 7b
    Caveat emptor. Buyer beware! Same thing with "science" and research. You and I are mostly on the same page, but how we understand and represent such things is where we will differ.

    The only place to hope for understanding is look to the author(s) of the original research. Most of what we argue about is how others are reporting the research findings to us. There's good science and experimental design and there's the awfully bad....and everything in between. All you can do is be good and skeptical about all of it. Make the scientists stand up to their success and failures. There are plenty of failures. Thru no fault of most scientists, the journalists don't find the lack of support for the research hypothesis very exciting.

    And, the problem is people who don't understand good experimental design. Good research starts with a hypothesis followed by the experiment. Every experiment starts by assuming the hypothesis is NOT true - the null hypothesis. The research is conducted to disprove the null hypothesis.

    So, "Funny thing about science, not too many set out to disprove their theory, opinion, but rather to prove it" is upside down.
     
    Cap'n likes this.
  15. Doe Shooter

    Doe Shooter Active Member

    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    128
    Location:
    West -Central Illinois
    Hardiness Zone:
    5
    IMO,it is worth noting any and all information available with any chemical. In my lifetime I've seen the well deserved removal of 72%chlordane and pentachlorophenol, 2,4,5T combined with 2,4D(agent orange) arsenate's ,DDT, that you could buy at any hardware store. A person should have a bit of healthy skepticism. Something safe today might be found not so safe in the future. If not for you, the kids.
     
  16. Baker

    Baker Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    629
    Our goal here on the farm is to be as self sufficient as possible. I grow a very large organic garden. My wife has a very large herb garden. Almost all the meat we eat is from the farm. We grow our own broilers and egg layers. Everything fed pure quality foods as chemical free as possible. regularly test the Brix count of the stuff we grow to confirm high nutritional value.

    Ive taken to multi cropping my food plots following the ideas of Ray the soil guy and a whole host of no till cover crop farmers. I've never used pesticides, have all but eliminated herbicides, no GMO's and haven't used commercial fertilizer in years. My food plots achieve all the goals I look for and have been continually improving. As have the deer...

    Not naive enough to think I can eliminate all toxins from our environment but directionally very clear about our lifestyle. Nor do we obsess [ well my wife maybe a little ] but very clear about the choices we want to make for our health and environment.

    All that said I sure am glad I don't have to make a living as a farmer.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2018
    Bowman and Smallplot like this.
  17. Smallplot

    Smallplot Active Member

    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    Pike County IL
    Nicely stated Baker!

    Now to move along and address this info to food plots. Soooo here I guess is a question. I don’t need an answer, maybe more of a discussion topic than anything. In switching over to a no-till situation which will be better for the soil, spraying once with GLY and letting the soil be left Undisturbed where the natural break down processes can be active and the soils kept held together naturally or using good old fashioned tillage which as we know led to many of the problems during the dust bowl and loss of nutrients? So is moving towards a either no till or limited tillage better since the use of not only herbicides but also man made nutrients are lessened or should we do away with herbicides all together and continue to the next dust bowl?

    Another thought on this is at one time there was enough Sulfur applied during rains that adding extra was not necessary. Push forward and now that pollutants are cut down via emissions from factory and vehicles we find that sulfur has to be applied again.

    The bad side is there are usually consequences no matter what choice is made and what is good for one is bad for another. Baker touched on a very good point and that situation varies from his and needs addressed as well. It is easier to deal with this situation if your a small farm but when you are running thousands of acres and your income is based on the success of crops grown it makes it very hard to think of this type of control as a good bandaid or even warning sign.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2018
    farmer likes this.
  18. dogghr

    dogghr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    Likes Received:
    1,461
    Location:
    Monroe County, WV
    Interesting discussion and one that always surfaces at least once a year with the same dilemma with no real clear answer. I agree to tread carefully with chemicals, but don't think they are necessarily the evil some think. But I watched the advocates of DDT years ago say it did no harm and farming would be unprofitable without it. Of course Agent Orange is the demise in many aging Nam veterans especially with Parkinson's . And certainly Union Carbide and Monsanto are mainstay plants in my state. Always good and bad with any technology.
    And I have always argued that most chemicals are not as innocent as promoted. If I dig a hole in a plot that has had no Gly spray, the invertebrate population is heavy. Yet in a recently Gly sprayed field, not so much. Lots of factors there I know, but def and observation. I'm not sure the need for RR plants for the typical food plotter feeding deer.
    This I do know, if you don't plant monocultures, allow weeds and grasses to exist in the plots, and do a timely rotation, then there is little or no need for chemical applications. I certainly am no till but I certainly don't own a no till equipment. Well kinda I do, its a bush hog and spreader used with rotation plantings. :cool:
     
    Bowman likes this.
  19. X-farmerdan

    X-farmerdan Active Member

    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    235
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia, USDA Zone 7b
    Let's see. To this point it looks like 349 people have viewed this thread and there have been 17 response. I don't think we are changing the minds of anyone!;)

    I am neither an advocate nor a proponent of the agrochemical industry. I do believe it is necessary to facilitate the feeding of an ever expanding population in an economical way.

    My only hope is that we will be vigilant of the potential risks, but in a way that benefits all of us and not just the herbicide, insecticide, and fungicide developers and manufactures.

    I go to the grocery store and buy organic tomatoes and industrial apples. The checkout clerk asks me, "Do you know you have organic tomatoes and regular apples?" I say, yes and this confuses her. I just tell her I support all kinds of agricultural productions systems. I learned long ago to hedge bets!
     
    Smallplot likes this.
  20. Bowman

    Bowman Member

    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    USDA Zone 4b
    Hardiness Zone:
    5
    Nice observation. And maybe too bad. I would hope that "we" would attempt to improve the soil to improve "our" plots. This is an interesting read, dogghr, and more, I hope. https://www.soilassociation.org/media/7202/glyphosate-and-soil-health-full-report.pdf

    After reading many of these posts, hopefully I have learned something. As of now, I think that it starts with the soil.
     

Share This Page

Members Online Now

  1. Kaleb,
  2. rdstrong3,
  3. Eshoremd,
  4. Zeek
Total: 118 (members: 4, guests: 71, robots: 43)
(moderators are listed in blue)