Scientists Find a Better Way To Wash Pesticides Off Your Apples (cnet.com) 138
According to a new study, the best way to reduce pesticides from your supermarket apple is to use a baking soda solution. The discovery was made by a team of scientists from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. They compared the effectiveness of plain tap water, a commercial bleach solution and a baking soda/water mix in removing pesticides from apples. CNET reports: The scientists started with organic Gala apples and applied the fungicide thiabendazole and the insecticide phosmet before testing the different washing liquids. "The baking soda solution was the most effective at reducing pesticide," a release on the study notes. "After 12 and 15 minutes, 80 percent of the thiabendazole was removed, and 96 percent of the phosmet was removed, respectively." The researchers say the industry-standard approach of washing fruit in a bleach solution for two minutes after harvest is not an effective way to completely remove pesticides. They also found the fungicide thiabendazole penetrated into the apple peel much more than the insecticide. Apple lovers would need to remove the peel to also get rid of the pesticide that wasn't washed off with the baking soda solution. The researchers published the findings this week in the American Chemical Society's Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
washing removes fecal first (Score:3)
Re:washing removes fecal first (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Birds?
Re: (Score:2)
Kik me.
Re:washing removes fecal first (Score:4, Funny)
I would seriously like to see the person who climbs a tree to poop on an apple.
No, they just don't come down from the ladder, and then the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Re: (Score:2)
I liked the other hypothesis better.
Dose (Score:2, Insightful)
Any ill effects from the pesticide or fungicide in low doses? No? No chronic effects at low doses, either? No bio accumulation?
Then I don't care.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A friend who was a fruit farmer blamed pesticides on his cancer, and years ago started what we now shop as "organic"
Population studies vs self diagnosis (Score:5, Informative)
A friend who was a fruit farmer blamed pesticides on his cancer, and years ago started what we now shop as "organic"
Problem with your friend's logic is that he (she?) has a sample size of one. While it's not unreasonable that pesticides could have played a role, it's impossible to determine the likelihood of pesticides as a cause without some form of population study. We know that smoking causes cancer because we have population studies so that we can confidently say what the increased risk is and that there is a clear causal (and correlated) link. While it wouldn't be surprising at all if pesticides resulted in cancer, if there aren't properly scientific population studies then it is little more than an educated guess which should be frustrating to all of us.
The whole organic movement is based on this misapprehension. The idea of organics is logical. Less exposure to toxic stuff logically should in principle correlate with improved health. Good idea. Problem has been that it has turned out to be really hard to pin down any actual measurable health benefit from organic foods. All evidence seems to indicate there is no nutrition advantage and so far it's unclear if there are any meaningful secondary health benefits. Some companies have realized economic benefits but it's not (yet) clear if organic foods really result in better health for consumers. As logical as the idea of organics is, sometimes what seems logical doesn't actually result in the expected outcome. I'm not arguing that eating organic foods is a bad idea (I think it's very reasonable if you can afford it) as long as you understand that there isn't (yet) any clear evidence that it results in better outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
His friend is not just a sample size of one. His friend is a sample size of one where exposure cross-section is drastically different than the general population.
Sample of one not sufficient (Score:2)
His friend is not just a sample size of one. His friend is a sample size of one where exposure cross-section is drastically different than the general population.
Correct but that still does not provide sufficient evidence to indicate a causal link between his exposure and cancer most likely. You have no way to really know if the cancer came from the chemicals or if he had some other exposure or genetic disposition that was the proximal cause of the disease. It's no different than taking a homeopathic "cure" and then declaring yourself to be better when you recover. You can't tell if the cure worked of it it was just a placebo all by yourself. Unless you can find
Re: (Score:2)
Before population studies on smoking, we had 'samples of one'. Many, many samples. For many centuries.
Then came the studies -- a bit like we have here [nih.gov] and now [nih.gov]. Then rebuttals. Cries for more research. And so forth. All the while, exposure grew, until the sheer mass of statistics made the problem undeniable.
Now, of course we 'know' smoking causes some cancer. Did it cause Joe Sixpack's individual case of lung cancer? Joe may say so. No one can prove it with absolute certainty. It's an educated guess. But it'
Anecdotes != Data (Score:2)
Before population studies on smoking, we had 'samples of one'. Many, many samples. For many centuries.
We have many many samples of one on homeopathy too. Samples of one mean precisely dick unless they are very carefully compiled. Those are called anecdotes and the plural of anecdote is not data.
Now, of course we 'know' smoking causes some cancer. Did it cause Joe Sixpack's individual case of lung cancer? Joe may say so. No one can prove it with absolute certainty. It's an educated guess. But it's probable.
My wife is a pathologist and I've spoken to her about this exact topic. According to her, in a lot of cases we do know with near absolute certainty or as close as we will ever get. There are some forms of lung cancer that we know enough about the pathology and have enough population studies that it if the person
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dose (Score:4, Interesting)
Meh, I'll just peel apples from now on. I know I don't get as much nutrition but I like my nutrition free of pesticides, herbicides and various other rural pollutants. As for low doses, you know what, I'll be I could punch you in the face every day for the rest of your life and it would not shorten your life one little bit but I can assure that is sound reason to allow someone to punch you in the face ever day for the rest of your life. Poisoning yourself at non-lethal levels, still impacts your life, makes you more unhealthy, makes you suffer longer from infections and generally makes life a whole lot less satisfying, much like getting punched every day for the rest of your life. That it takes so long and another chemical to clean the chemicals off apples, means I will be peeling apples for the rest of my life unless they a reliably certified organic, punch yourself in the face as much as you want, I will not be joining you.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Poisoning yourself at non-lethal levels, still impacts your life,
Except the evidence shows that it doesn't.
Most of the chemicals that comprise the foods we eat are poisonous at certain levels. Even most vitamins and minerals are poisonous as well. Taking small amounts of most types of poison won't poison you a little bit. Usually it does nothing.
Go ahead and eat whatever you like, but keep in mind that nearly everything is poisonous at some point. And, all apple seeds have a chemical that metabolizes into cyanide. So good luck with that :)
Re:Dose (Score:5, Informative)
Phosmet, as used in the experiment, is an organophosphate compound.
This from wikipedia:
"Even at relatively low levels, organophosphates may be hazardous to human health. The pesticides act on acetylcholinesterase,[14] an enzyme found in the brain chemicals closely related to those involved in ADHD, thus fetuses and young children, where brain development depends on a strict sequence of biological events, may be most at risk.[15] They can be absorbed through the lungs or skin or by eating them on food. According to a 2008 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, âdetectableâ traces of organophosphate were found in a representative sample of produce tested by the agency, 28% of frozen blueberries, 20% of celery, 27% of green beans, 17% of peaches, 8% of broccoli, and 25% of strawberries.[16]"
So tell me please, what's your "evidence that shows it doesn't". I'd really like to know.
And, just a bit of insight here - we evolved alongside most/all of the foods "that can be poisonous at certain levels". That's one of the reasons we evolved, i.e. we learned not to eat too much of those foods. We have *not* evolved alongside many, if not all of the synthetic compounds commonly used as biocides in agriculture, so we don't know the effects of long-term exposure - not just one or two generations, but centuries of low-level exposure.
Proper research and evidence (Score:3)
"Even at relatively low levels, organophosphates may be hazardous to human health.
This is an unsupported an meaningless statement even if it ultimately is actually true. There are lots of things that MAY be hazardous to our health. That doesn't equal evidence that they ARE actually hazardous. The entire reason we do scientific studies is to figure out if there is a causal relationship. We know cigarettes are hazardous to your health because we've done the work to figure it out. While there is nothing wrong with avoiding a possible hazard (like pesticides) out of an abundance of caut
Re: (Score:2)
"Wikipedia is NOT a good place to cite "evidence" relating to scientific health studies"
You're quite right. But it's a start, and better than the post I was referring to, which only stated that "Except the evidence shows that it doesn't." without attempting to provide some backup.
Is this a bit more reliable:
https://tools.niehs.nih.gov/sr... [nih.gov]
I'm not going to go chapter and verse on the literature, I believe that the precautionary principle should apply - organophosphates can cause serious problems in humans i
Studying subtle effects (Score:2)
The post I was referring to claimed that micro-exposure wasn't a problem. "Taking small amounts of most types of poison won't poison you a little bit. Usually it does nothing." I disagree.
Gotcha. Yes you are correct. Small doses of certain toxins may not have easily observable effects but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Lead is a great example. It's not easy to observe the effects of small doses of lead spread widely in the population because it's not acutely toxic in small quantities and the negative effects can be difficult to tie to specific individuals.
What has always alarmed me is how casual we are as a society about putting all sorts of toxic crap into production and daily use
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, I'll just peel apples from now on. I know I don't get as much nutrition but I like my nutrition free of pesticides, herbicides and various other rural pollutants.
Exactly what nutrients are you losing by peeling the apple? Are they things that you don't get elsewhere in your diet already? I feel like this is one of those "common sense" things that everyone knows, or at least thinks they know, except I've not seen any data backing that up.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly what nutrients are you losing by peeling the apple?
You lose very little [thekitchn.com]. It is a myth that the nutrients are concentrated in the peel. So peel guilt free. Or even better, just don't eat apples. Nutritionally, they are one of the worst fruits. Peaches, pears, cherries, watermelon, oranges, bananas, and even tomatoes or bell peppers, have far more good stuff in them.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a reason to eat lots of apples. They don't make you fat.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a reason to eat lots of apples. They don't make you fat.
Lack of nutrients is not the same as a lack of calories. Apple juice is basically sugar water with tannins. You might as well save money and just buy soda instead.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a reason to eat lots of apples. They don't make you fat.
Lack of nutrients is not the same as a lack of calories. Apple juice is basically sugar water with tannins. You might as well save money and just buy soda instead.
This is absolutely not true. Apple Juice is much less healthy than eating the fruit. For one thing, apples are loaded with fiber. For another thing, calories consumed via liquids ARE worse for you than via solids- the sugars get fast tracked into your bloodstream. Body can metabolize sugars in liquids much quicker than in foods.
Re: (Score:2)
Also if you throw them instead of eating they make doctors go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's more the teratons of bread and breading we eat than fruits. Fruits would be an improvement over that.
Re: (Score:2)
There's quite a bit of fibre in the peel. Quite a bit in the flesh, too, but discarding the peel does lose some of the "goodness".
The peel is not a nutrition-free zone, so eat it or don't, but it's a bit of a waste if you discard it.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a decision tree.
If fat, don't eat the apple, or replace the six pizza slices with it.
If not fat, eat it all or skip the peel but you probably will statistically lop more time off your life accidentally cutting yourself while peeling and dying of infection than from pesticide residue.
If starving, eat it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, I'll just peel apples from now on.
That may not work. [consumerreports.org]
And no matter how thoroughly you clean your apples, you may not be able to remove all the chemicals, because some may penetrate more deeply into the fruit, depending on which pesticides they are and when they were applied.
This method is effective at removing the pesticides that penetrate through the fruit. However, further reading shows the pesticide tested only penetrates 80 micrometers. [eurekalert.org] So peeling may help. However, there may be other pesticides that penetrate deeper into the fruit.
Re: Dose (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Or thoroughly lick the skin, then spit. That ought to do it.
Great advice Dr. Love. Now what about the apples...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly don't care enough to try washing my Apples in a commercial bleach solution. Who came up with that bright idea to get rid of chemical residue?
Clorox?
Re:Dose (Score:4, Insightful)
I certainly don't care enough to try washing my Apples in a commercial bleach solution.
This research is not aimed at consumers. It is aimed at fruit processors. They currently wash with a bleach solution, partly to remove chemicals, but mostly to kill bacteria such as salmonella, before shipping the fruit to the grocery store.
Re: Dose (Score:2)
That âoecommercial bleach solutionâ is 0.5ppm chlorine, that tap water you drink is 2-4ppm.
Re: (Score:1)
Use of a strong oxidizer is commonly used in food processing to kill bacteria. This means bleach, peroxide foam, and a few other chemicals are equally effective. You not only wash down the produce so there is no chance of fecal matter contamination from livestock or from poorly sterilized organic fertilizer but wash down the conveyor belts and packaging machinery so the residue of rotten, rejected, produce doesn't contaminate the good produce.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The old adage still holds true: The dose makes the poison.
These days we have a slew of jokers who failed high school chemistry and never had the brains for anything like organic chemistry in college, and these folks run around freaking out that you might get a few micrograms of a harmless pesticide or fungicide, whereas eating a slightly moldy spot in an apple probably gives you a much larger dose of cytotoxins, and insect penetration of fruit often leads to bacterial contamination, sometimes with something
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly - a good example of a common "poison" that isn't a poison is water. Apart from drowning, many people have died from drinking too much water and causing the blood to thin to a point where it no longer can carry enough oxygen (there's some scientific term for it). This usually occurs in marathon runners and the estimate is about 6 litres per hour (2 buckets to the cock crow for the imperialists). Also on the topic of apples and poison, the seeds of apples contain small amounts of a chemical that can b
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I believe you are referring to hyponatremia, where purified water (not drinking water or electrolyte solutions like Gatorade) washes out the ions sodium and potassium. AFAIK, without blood loss and subsequent IV injection, you can't dilute blood, as your kidneys and GI normally maintain a balance of absorption and excretion and blood pressure and your body has a finite volume limit on total blood volume defined by your CV system.
Also, on the apple front, yes, you can overdose on B17, but cal
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like an expert in the area. I'd like to hear your explanation for growing pollen allergies, food allergies, food intolerance, etc. Also - are there any long term (i.e. tens of years) studies confirming that there are no ill nor chronic effects? If no, then at best you can claim: "we don't know".
Speaking of (Score:2)
>. You sound like an expert in the area. I'd like to hear your explanation for growing pollen allergies, food allergies, food intolerance, etc. Also - are there any long term (i.e. tens of years) studies confirming that there are no ill nor chronic effects? If no, then at best you can claim: "we don't know".
I'd like to hear your evidence for ANY of what you just claimed. If no, then the best you can claim is "is I don't know - what I'm talking about"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Speaking of (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have on 2 or 3 occasions eaten a freshly picked unwashed apple that turned out to have pesticide residue, and the effects were pretty nasty. My throat constricted; I could neither swallow nor burp (fortunately, I could still breathe). I started drooling. The effects lasted perhaps 10 or 15 minutes.
This has never happened with supermarket apples; I assume they wash their produce or their suppliers do. Farmstands seldom bother to wash. Beware.
No formal long-term testing on pesticide effects.. (Score:2)
soap and water (Score:1)
How about if I just continue to wash apples with a drop of dish soap and some running water before I eat them. Also has the benefit of cleaning my hands while I clean the apple!
Power washer (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
What I do is get the screen replaced by a third party. Wipes them totally clean.
This is excellent. (Score:5, Interesting)
I imagine the baking soda would be safer and cheaper for cleaning produce than a bleach solution.
Re: (Score:2)
That would depend on both the cost of bleach and sodium bicarbonate and the concentrations required for washing.
Re: This is excellent. (Score:5, Informative)
The bleach solution is per FDA requirements more dilute than lots of tap water. The primary reason is not to remove any chemicals but to prevent common bugs and harmful microbes from remaining on the fruit.
The other problem with this âoetestâ is that organic apples are sprayed with more chemicals than regular apples, worse yet, organic farming has zero oversight on the chemicals they spray as long as the chemicals are considered âoecertified organicâ
Re: (Score:2)
I have two apple trees in my small garden and thanks to the reduction in the number of insects I hardly had any apple with worms or other things in and on it this year, despite not soing anything against insects while they grew. So spraying them is not necessary anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
You misquoted:
(a) Such sanitizing solutions are used, followed by adequate draining, before contact with food.
So what you quoted is basically for cleaning food equipment. 200ppm is what is used industrially, at home you're recommended to use an 800-3200ppm solution.
Food processing in-plant chlorination systems typically produce water for processing with residual available chlorine levels of no more than 0.5 ppm.
Re: (Score:1)
Bleach is for bacteria and fungi. Baking soda is for neutralizing organic phosphates used in herbicides and pesticides.
The bleach wash is for commercial packagers. Baking soda in the wash water is for the end user (the cook) to do as part of preparation in the kitchen.
You should ALWAYS was produce prior to preparing in the kitchen. If you can't figure out why; you may not be a safe person to have preparing food.
Bleach is for bacteria not pesticides (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bleaching after picking is to remove contaminants and disease causing bacteria from the soil.
Maybe they should try picking apples from the tree instead of collecting the ones that already fell to the ground, if that is the goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I really wonder how we europeans survive without chemically disinfecting all food...
Re: (Score:2)
Pathogens aren't just on the ground (Score:2)
Maybe they should try picking apples from the tree instead of collecting the ones that already fell to the ground, if that is the goal.
You haven't actually been to an apple orchard have you? Here's a few little tips. Apples ARE picked from the trees. The ones on the ground aren't the ones you buy in the store. Also, soil comes in the form of dust which doesn't just stay on the ground. Also, there are small creatures (worms, flies, etc) that can track soil onto fruit still on the tree as well as from the hands of the person picking the fruit. There also are other microbes, fungus, and other concerning pathogens that exist even on frui
Science! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: Simpler yet (Score:2)
Good luck with that. No farmer in this world uses or would survive on a zero pesticide policy.
If you want to see how apples look when theyâ(TM)re not cultivated with pesticides, there are plenty of wild apple trees out there and although you can eat some of them that are still on the tree, the majority will be waste.
Re: (Score:2)
Wild apple trees have 3 additional disadvantages. They're often shaded by taller trees, so the apples don't grow as big or ripen as soon. They aren't fertilized. They aren't pruned for best production. (To the best of my knowledge, commercial apple trees aren't usually watered, but I could be wrong.)
If a commercial apple orchard were to stop using pesticides, in the short term there'd be a lot of wormy apples, and in the long term there might be some trees damaged or killed. At least some of the trees in ab
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The baking soda mix is indeed a solution, as the inorganic compound dissolves completely in water.
Methodology does not represent real life (Score:5, Insightful)
The study started with organic, pesticide-free apples. The researchers sprayed the pesticides on the apples, then washed them off with the various solutions.
This method does not really mimic real life, where pesticides are sprayed on plants repeatedly over periods of weeks or months. In real life, some of the pesticides would soak into the apples, where it wouldn't be possible to wash them off using ANY solution.
Re: Methodology does not represent real life (Score:3)
It also presumes that organic produce does not have pesticides which a single trip to a farm supply store will prove wrong.
Even Better Method (Score:5, Insightful)
Buy apple without poison on them. Yes I know, the organic apples are more expensive and some people have the odassity to sell you apples with spots (not that they taste worse, often they taste better). And yes if all would do that, you could not have large monocultures anymore making the apples more expensive. Still you do not have to eat poison and maybe we have a chance to get our insects back, which could increase the yield.
Re: Even Better Method (Score:2)
Organic produce uses more pesticides than non-organic...
Re: Even Better Method (Score:2)
No they don't. It would be against the very basic idea of organic farming. Anyway, in the EU pesticides and fungisides are forbidden together with artificial fertilizers in organic farming.
BTW writing ... just looks like you are lazy and have no real argument and no insight you just do not like it that is why do post because it shows that your lifestyle is not sustainable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Out of curiosity, I've just had a look at some lists of permitted "organic" pesticides and fungicides under EU rules, they aren't much better than the US or AU. You're still talking intensely toxic substances like pyrethrins and copper sulfate. The info is on the EC websites, it's just in a bunch of Excel spreadsheets and PDFs.
Re: Even Better Method (Score:2)
Organic farming in the US and EU is farming that only uses âoecertified organicâ pesticides.
Additionally, the FDA does not oversee the amount of âoeorganicâ pesticides are being used.
You can look it up. Organic does not mean no pesticides, it only means it doesnâ(TM)t use pesticides that arenâ(TM)t approved for the label.
Re: (Score:3)
Organic farming in the US and EU is farming that only uses âoecertified organicâ pesticides.
There is not such thing as an "certified organic pesticides". What should that be? Or are you talking about Copperhydroxid, Azadirachtin, Bacillus thuringiensis, etc. which are biodegradable, are already present in nature, and are very specific in their properties. Whereas Glyphosate (herbicide) and other chemicals, e.g., carbamates, are usually much more dangerous and are sprayed on crops. While you do not find pesticides and herbicides on your organic apple (if it is not be transported from the neighbor).
Re: (Score:3)
Completely false. OMRI is the group that certifies them in the US. https://www.omri.org/ [omri.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because plants produce copper hydroxide and azadirachtin naturally. Look up the names, most of those are chemically synthesized meaning they aren't "natural". Glyphosate is non-toxic and biodegradable, copper hydroxide is slightly toxic to humans and highly toxic to aquatic animals. But don't let science get in the way of your marketing-fed ideas.
Here's a list for you. Organic more poisonous (Score:5, Informative)
I'm afraid the marketing has tricked you.
EU organic regulations are that the pesticides must be of natural (impure) origin rather than being produced synthetically (and more pure). Safer pesticides which aren't readily available from natural sources aren't allowed, so organic farms must use the following more dangerous pesticides.
Here are some pesticides used in organic agriculture, with their median lethal doses:
Copper(II) sulfate is used as a fungicide and is also used in conventional agriculture (LD50 300 mg/kg). Conventional agriculture has the option to use the less toxic Mancozeb (LD50 4,500 to 11,200 mg/kg)
Boric acid is used as stomach poison that target insects (LD50: 2660 mg/kg).
Pyrethrin comes from chemicals extracted from flowers of the genus Pyrethrum (LD50 of 370 mg/kg). Its potent toxicity is used to control insects.
Lime sulphur (aka calcium polysulfide) and sulfur are considered to be allowed, synthetic materials[177] (LD50: 820 mg/kg)
Rotenone is a powerful insecticide that was used to control insects (LD50: 132 mg/kg). Despite the high toxicity of Rotenone to aquatic life and some links to Parkinson disease the compound is still allowed in organic farming as it is a naturally occurring compound.[178]
Bromomethane is a gas that is still used in the nurseries of Strawberry organic farming[179]
Azadirachtin is a wide spectrum very potent insecticide. Almost non toxic to mammals (LD50 in rats is > 3,540 mg/kg) but affects beneficial insects.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Boric acid is pretty harmless to humans, but it really kills insects. My grandma used to put it in our eyes as a gentle antiseptic. I still add it to absolutely every load of laundry I do, since it lowers the surface tension of water and saves on detergent, while also deodorizing synthetic fabrics. You can buy it in most discount or drug stores, sold as "Borax" and the most common brand is 20 Mule Team which has been around forever. If you've ever developed your own photographic film, you'll also know b
Re: (Score:1)
You can buy it in most discount or drug stores, sold as "Borax" and the most common brand is 20 Mule Team which has been around forever. If you've ever developed your own photographic film, you'll also know boric acid as "fixer."
Trivia: A lot of Borax used to be mined in Death Valley which is where those 20 mule teams were often used to haul stuff in and out. In the park there's a place you can visit called "20 Mule Team Canyon".
More Trivia: Those 20 mule teams were actually usually 18 mules led by 2 horses.
Re: (Score:2)
You are technically wrong. Borax is disodium tetraborate, usually incorporated into a crystal with a fair amount of water. Boric acid is B(OH)3
In photography, borax is used in the popular black & white developer D76, where it acts as a weak solvent of silver halides (among other functions) and generally makes the developer worse by weakening the contrast in areas of low exposure. Stop bath is usually dilute acetic acid. Fixer is based on sodium thiosulphate, which works better if acidified (I guess bori
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think it's underlined strongly enough, Pyrethrin is the base of almost all consumer-use insecticides world-wide (usually in synthetic forms). It is quite toxic to cats, intensely toxic to invertebrates (aquatic too) and various sea creatures. RAID, Mortein, Baygon, etc all use pyrethroids as their active ingredient. It's only a mild irritant as normal usage levels to most other mammals apart from cats.
However, using the original natural stuff is just as bad as spraying your crops with fly spray. It
Re: (Score:2)
Although various pyrethrins seem to be the most common, most agricultural stores also have carbamates (Sevin) and malathion.
There are many synthetic pyrethrins/pyrethroids with different effects. The stuff in RAID, for instance, also kills plants.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. I should have been more precise and refer to those synthetic agents which are used in industrial farming with the common wide spread side effects on insects and plant diversity.
Not Poisonous - read your own post (Score:1)
... must use the following more dangerous pesticides.
Here are some pesticides used in organic agriculture, with their median lethal doses:
Did you not read your own post? Those substances are demonstrably not dangerous to people.
median lethal dose of 4,500mg/kg? So essentially not toxic. Down at 370mg/kg is where noticeable effects even start: So if you weigh only 90lb and eat an apple smothered with half an ounce of Pyrethrum you still have a 50% chance of surviving. There is a lot of shit, which if you ate a half ounce smothered onto a 3 to 3.5oz apple would kill you.
math isn't even needed, to see how wrong this part of your post was
Azadirachtin is a wide spectrum very potent insecticide. Almost non toxic to mammals
for
"you'll probably survive the first one" (Score:2)
> if you weigh only 90lb and eat an apple smothered with half an ounce of Pyrethrum you still have a 50% chance of surviving.
Yes you'll probably *survive* after eating organic produce. Is that the standard you use for choosing the best foods, "it probably won't outright kill me the first time"?
The simple fact is, the regulations for organic labeling are that to labeled "organic" they are not allowed to use the less toxic pesticides; they must use more toxic ones which are extracted rather than synthesi
Re: (Score:2)
odassity
The word you're looking for is "audacity".
As in, some people have the audacity to pretend knowledge when in reality they are almost completely ignorant, albeit passionate, about the subject.
In reality, unless you grow them yourself, your chances of finding an apple that has not been treated with some kind of 'toxic' chemical is practically zero, and, even if you do grow them yourself, the environment is full of noxious things that can pollute your pristine apple.
In addition, it is rather difficult, and not
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. Anyway, We need an edit function in slashdot. Especially for those who write with their smartphone and clumsy fingers. ;-)
In reality, unless you grow them yourself, your chances of finding an apple that has not been treated with some kind of 'toxic' chemical is practically zero, and, even if you do grow them yourself, the environment is full of noxious things that can pollute your pristine apple.
The air is nowadays often less toxic than in the past. They do not use DDT anymore and the use of other agents is more regulated. In addition, factory exhaust is cleaner than in the past. Recent particulate matter issues in Western countries also happened in the past, but were not a public issue then. Anyway, they are a problem and you should wash your food before eating.
Look in any orchard and you'll tend to see rather a lot of plants that aren't trees [...]
That dep
Re: (Score:2)
For sure - just buy apples without the bloomin' problem!
Otherwise, this reads as "the solution to nasty chemicals in your food is to use more chemicals". I know gun nuts like that sort of reasoning, but the rest of us see a few flaws with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange topic (Score:2)
Am I the only one that read the topic as "Scientists find a better way to watch testicles on your apples"?
I tried it on mine... (Score:2)
... and now I need a new notebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Soap causes autism. Plain old autism.
Re: (Score:1)
Reading /. causes dementia.
Re: (Score:2)