
UN experts denounce ‘myth’ that pesticides are necessary to feed the world - YeGoblynQueenne
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/07/un-experts-denounce-myth-pesticides-are-necessary-to-feed-the-world
======
nkoren
I'm no fan of pesticides -- far, far, from it -- but this is unadulterated
ideological polemic. Reading the actual report, the argument can be summed up
as:

    
    
      1. Pesticides are bad.
    
      2. Pesticides are bad.
    
      3-8. Pesticides are bad.
    
      9. Oh and they don't even do anything.
    

The first sections may be entirely true, but are not a cost/benefit analysis.
I could easily believe that 200,000 die every year from pesticide toxicity.
But if 100 million people are saved from starvation every year due to
pesticide use, then that isn't an argument against it. You need to present
both sides of an argument in order for it to be anything less then polemical.

The final section is based on misrepresentation of sources. For example, first
source they cite[1] does, in fact, state in the abstract that:

    
    
      Despite a clear increase in pesticide use, crop losses 
      have not significantly decreased during the last 40 years.
    

And then goes on to state:

    
    
      However, pesticide use has enabled farmers to modify 
      production systems and to increase crop productivity without 
      sustaining the higher losses likely to occur from an 
      increased susceptibility to the damaging effect of pests.
    
      The concept of integrated pest/crop management includes a 
      threshold concept for the application of pest control 
      measures and reduction in the amount/frequency of pesticides 
      applied to an economically and ecologically acceptable 
      level. Often minor crop losses are economically acceptable; 
      however, an increase in crop productivity without adequate 
      crop protection does not make sense, because an increase in 
      attainable yields is often associated with an increased 
      vulnerability to damage inflicted by pests.
    

...Which is completely counter to the assertions made in the anti-pesticide
article.

This is crap. If you want to see less pesticide use, do some actual science to
prove your point; don't resort to polemical nonsense.

1: [https://documents-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF...](https://documents-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF/G1701785.pdf?OpenElement)

2: [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-
agricultu...](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-agricultural-
science/article/div-classtitlecrop-losses-to-
pestsdiv/AD61661AD6D503577B3E73F2787FE7B2)

[edit: formatting]

~~~
criddell
> If you want to see less pesticide use, do some actual science to prove your
> point; don't resort to polemical nonsense.

I agree with everything you said, except maybe this. Polemical nonsense _can_
be more effective than science if you are trying to alter policy or public
opinion. If that weren't true, global warming wouldn't be controversial.

~~~
nkoren
I don't disagree with you as far as the _effectiveness_ of polemic; more the
_ethics_ of it. Built on a rational/empirical foundation, a good polemic can
engage hit people in both the guts _and_ the brain. That's fine. But _absent_
such a foundation, a polemic is just empty posturing. It might win, but to
what end? And if we accept this as a legitimate way of arguing policy, then
how what right to we have to object when others use the same tactic against
us?

I recognise that all over the world -- and especially in America -- the
political sphere is increasingly dominated by people engaging in polemical
arguments that consider facts to be essentially irrelevant. And yes, this is
working for them. But if we stoop to that level, the contagion only spreads,
and politics devolves into nothing more than tribal hooting at one another.
Which is usually the last step before civil war.

So we need to be better than that.

~~~
criddell
The ethics are complex. If the use of polemic speech spurs action on climate
change, you are potentially avoiding (or mitigating) catastrophes. Sometimes
the end justifies the means.

------
white-flame
Regardless of any real or tin-foil-hatted dangers regarding pesticides, GMO,
etc, I believe that biodiversity in and decentralization of our food supply
are two vectors of robustness & anti-fragility that we should embrace, as
opposed to optimizing outputs for monoculture monopoly farming.

~~~
ptaipale
Agreed, but why then are the opinion papers such as Guardian then
concentrating on denouncing GMO or pesticides, and not monocultures?

~~~
jmknoll
Not entirely sure, but a couple of thoughts.

Monoculture is a less well-known problem than pesticides for the general
public. Its easier to rail against a problem that feels familiar than to teach
a somewhat new idea and then discuss the dangers of it.

Additionally, a lot of people like the products of monoculture and the cheap,
on-demand, readily-available food business that it enables. It would take a
seismic shift for a lot of people to accept discoloration in their mcdonalds
french fries, or tomatoes at walmart that aren't all perfectly spherical
pinkish orbs.

------
cmrdporcupine
I try not to use pesticides myself on my hobby farm, they do have many
downsides. However, I invite people to go visit their local organic farms,
where you will find the following suboptimal approaches to weed control:

\- Extensive rototilling / plowing / cultivation, soil disturbance: damages
soil structure, increases erosion, releases carbon locked in the soil
worsening global warming.

\- Propane burners strapped to the back of a tractor, torching the weeds.

\- Extensive use of volunteer or cheap manual labour -- look up WWOOF... true-
believer volunteer "WWOOFers" make up a significant labour force at organic
farms.

Finally, you will find that most organic farms are just growing green
vegetables or fruits and some small scale livestock. Which is great, but
frankly on a global scale what people eat the most of[but probably shouldn't]
is primarily wheat, maize, rice, and casava. You won't find many organic wheat
farms.

From my perspective the long term answer is to transition agriculture and
foodstuffs away from annual herbaceous crops which require tillage and/or
spray-down to perennial crops which over the long term build up soil structure
and potentially lock carbon away rather than releasing it. For an example of
research in this direction, take a look at The Land Institute's "Kernza"
perennial wheat replacement: [https://landinstitute.org/our-work/perennial-
crops/kernza/](https://landinstitute.org/our-work/perennial-crops/kernza/)

Agriculture is probably the biggest contributor to global climate change
through the combination of deforestation, intensive hydrocarbon usage, and the
damaging of soils. It is imperative we figure out a way to get it right, and
the discussions of GMO or pesticides are frankly a distraction from this
problem.

~~~
jeromenerf
> It is imperative we figure out a way to get it right, and the discussions of
> GMO or pesticides are frankly a distraction from this problem

They contribute to our contemporary vision of agriculture, which is intensive,
mono specific, high yield, mechanized, subsidized, etc. Short term.

GMO and pesticides optimize our current way of growing stuff but won't change
it.

I don't know about scaling progressively the permaculture ideal to world scale
but it feels like a good ideal. I would not be shocked if a sustainable system
would require us quadruple our effort (which is pretty much what third world
is up to).

~~~
cmrdporcupine
Yes I agree with you. This is my problem with GMO -- not the 'frankengene'
pseudo-science crap, but the ecological/economic problems you are mentioning
here.

But as someone who ran in permaculture circles for a bit, I am highly
skeptical of that ideological bucket, too.

------
lr4444lr
The original report[0] recommends "agroecology" as the alternative.

So when _Phytophthora Infestans_ led to the death a million Irish in the 19th
century, what should have been done? Or are we supposed to forget history?

[0][https://documents-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF...](https://documents-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF/G1701785.pdf?OpenElement)

~~~
sooheon
It was a high reliance on a monoculture which contributed to the devastation.
Smart "agroecology" would not forget the "ecology" root, meaning it would
design robust, biodiverse ecologies to produce our food.

~~~
specialist
Bad governance also contributed. Ireland was exporting food while the locals
starved.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Causes_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_\(Ireland\)#Causes_and_contributing_factors)

------
dmix
> Production is definitely increasing, but the problem is poverty, inequality
> and distribution.

Poverty and inequality are symptoms, they aren't problems that can be
generically solved independently of production.

> Elver said many of the pesticides are used on commodity crops, such as palm
> oil and soy, not the food needed by the world’s hungry people

It's 2017, we live in a global market. These are still industries that
generate wealth. Poorer countries could (and do) grow/sell these crops and
export them to other countries. Then they can take this capital and invest it
in more essential items locally.

And if they believe in wealth redistribution as a 'solution' to poverty (as it
seems to be implied?) then if this generates wealth in developed countries
with plenty of food (even entirely independently of developing countries) then
it could create surplus capital allowing them to provide aid and resources to
developing countries.

It seems like starting from the perspective that because product/production A
doesn't _directly_ benefit hungry people in B country that there is no way it
benefits the world as whole by being produced. Which is full of obvious
reductionist issues.

The problem/solution is we need to find safer pesticides or technology to grow
these foods and reduce the harmful externalities of production. But the
connection to not contributing to the global economy (rather than just
developed world) is questionable.

------
sheraz
Denounce is very different from debunked. In fact it is expression opinion vs
fact.

~~~
grabcocque
Debunk implies rational argument. That article is ranting.

------
grabcocque
It's not _necessary_. I mean if we use organic farming methods, we could
achieve the same thing except not only do they produce more emissions, but
because of the lower yield of crops, organic farms require more land.

In the tropics this means cutting down more rainforests, affecting not only
emissions but wildlife.

The scientific and technological solution is disease and pest resistant GM
crops.

~~~
6d6b73
In the developed countries food is just to cheap. I know this is controversial
statement, but considering how much food is wasted daily, and how much we're
overeating it's possible that not subsidizing food production, and getting rid
of pesticides would be better for us all.

The only other issue is that poor families would possibly have even less
access to food, but if we shuffled subsidies from farmers to the poor, that
would probably be enough.

Also, problem with the food full of pesticides, and virtually empty of
micronutrients is that this food is not really something we should be eating
anyway.

~~~
pmyjavec
I'm glad someone said this!

Like a lot of cheap goods available presently in the west, they often have a
low monetary cost but a high social and environmental cost.

IKEA furniture has had a dubious past, for example [1] and, cheap clothing can
be horrendous. [2]

Most people don't give a single thought about this stuff though, people even
get abusive if you mention it, but I still like to practice what I call "deep
consuming", which is investigating the origin of goods before purchasing :)

[1][https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/29/ikea-
anc...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/29/ikea-ancient-tree-
logging) [2] [http://truecostmovie.com/](http://truecostmovie.com/)

------
mrow84
My understanding of the issue is framed along the lines of these three
statements:

1\. Modern farming practices have increased productivity to the point where it
is possible to avoid serious food shortages.

2\. A significant percentage of the world population does not fully benefit
from these advances (~10%, according to [1]).

3\. In many systems, increasing utilisation (food productivity in this case)
also increases the risks associated with random variability.

Given what I know, point 1 is essentially indisputable. Technological advances
(including developments in pest control) have freed large portions of the
world population from periodic food poverty.

I feel that point 2 is used to justify increased investment in certain
categories of the developments referred to in point 1. That hungry people
exist is sufficient to justify expenditure that _could_ address food
shortages, but, in fact, does not. This is the main focus of the article -
that claims about reducing poverty are cynically employed by businesses to
further their economic goals. This should not really be a surprise, because
business is largely about making money, not reducing poverty.

Point 3 is something that I have long been concerned with, because I don't see
any mechanism in the market to restrain us from attempting to maximise
productivity. As described, the move towards maximisation is justified in
terms of poverty, and, although it can address that issue, it brings us closer
to another danger, which is global susceptibility to large random events. It
is for this reason that I feel the true focus should be on reducing poverty,
rather than simply allowing the market to attempt to solve the problem.
Reduced poverty is, as I understand it, generally associated with decreases in
population growth, from which we may be able to maintain a robust global food
supply that doesn't leave anyone hungry.

[1] [http://www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-and-poverty-
fac...](http://www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-
statistics/#hunger-number)

edit: formatting

------
officelineback
This may be controversial, but aren't GMOs really the way to go?

~~~
ptaipale
Scientifically, it's not controversial. The consensus about GMO's being good
is stronger than in the climate change case.

~~~
TillE
The EU regulatory bodies are not filled with crystal-waving hippies. Maybe you
should look into why GMOs are banned/heavily restricted there
(environmental/ecological risks).

"But science" is a good corporate propaganda strategy when the science does
clearly say one thing, but not this other thing which is also important. Don't
be misled. Look at the entire issue.

~~~
ptaipale
Huffington Post is filled with crystal-waving hippies, but they still publish
this:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-
entine/post_8915_b_6572130...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-
entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html)

 _" In sharp contrast to public views about GMOs, 89% of scientists believe
genetically modified foods are safe.

That’s the most eye-opening finding in a Pew Research Center study on science
literacy, undertaken in cooperation with the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS), and released on January 29.

The overwhelming scientific consensus exceeds the percentage of scientists,
88%, who think humans are mostly responsible for climate change. However, the
public appears far more suspicious of scientific claims about GMO safety than
they do about the consensus on global warming."_

The EU regulatory bodies are governed by elected politicians who in this case
listen to fearmongering, not science.

