Organic may not be much better, as many of the chemicals approved for organic crops are even worse. So, yes, regulation has failed. Good luck holding anyone accountable.
A friend of mine owns / operates a few hundred acre certified organic Avocado ranch in Carpinteria, CA. He explained to me it's mostly just paperwork and the organic pesticides / fertilizers are just as, if not more, gnarly than the non-organic ones. He said it just makes people feel good and there is virtually zero difference. Obviously a single source but one I hold very credible.
Sounds like your buddy is just using the organic title for marketing purposes. That is unfortunate, but not uncommon.
Here’s a source that doesn’t fit your buddy’s description…
Along the central coast of California, conventional strawberry growers apply chemicals like methyl bromide, an internationally banned substance that is no longer being manufactured, but is stockpiled for exemptions to the ban, which these growers exploit. Alternatively they have been experimenting with methyl iodide and other hardcore synthetic chemicals. They hire undocumented laborers to apply them.
Organic strawberry growers, on the other hand, use crop rotation of a brassica crop as a bio-fumigant, and they grow rows of alfalfa as a trap crop where pest infestations can be literally vacuumed up with a tractor implement.
In this case, there is a huge difference.
It is true that the National Organic Program is a joke, since they let the board get taken over by corporate big ag long ago. That doesn’t mean “it just makes people feel good and there is virtually zero difference”. In some cases it does, but to paint the whole thing as such is denying the larger reality.
"It is true that the National Organic Program is a joke, since they let the board get taken over by corporate big ag long ago. That doesn’t mean “it just makes people feel good and there is virtually zero difference”. In some cases it does, but to paint the whole thing as such is denying the larger reality."
The national program is the one that matters, right? Most people consuming organic produce in the US are affected by this. Isn't that the larger reality? The people who know and buy from their local organic strawberry farmer has to be the .0001 edge case.
The NOP is what I’m referring to as making a difference.
It is at the same time also much less adherent to the philosophy of organics than it could be.
Both are true at the same time. The standards are weakened by big ag, but they are still much less toxic and polluting than conventional standards (or lack there of)
I have been involved in organic agriculture, including strawberry production, for more than 15 years. I do consulting, regulatory compliance, and data analysis.
Not currently focused on strawberries, but cannabis has a similar story. The organic alternatives, even the hardcore ones, are less toxic and have much less residual than what is regularly used in conventional agriculture.
The general difference with organic pesticides and herbicides is they tend to be less persistent in the environment (lower half life, less off-target impact, etc). Organic farming was never supposed to be about human health, it was supposed to be about environmental health. The program was also suppose dto use chemicals as a last resort, instead relying on different agricultural techniques from the typical mass monoculture farm. Instead it has been mostly hijacked by people just doing the paperwork and switching which chemicals they're spraying.
Like what specifically? It is certainly true that there's little difference between naturally and synthetically sourced chemicals of the same identity (ideally, where supply chain doesn't affect composition)
But at least naively, these all seem like the least concern: Fairly well behaved nutrient stuff like phosphate rock, nitrates, sulfur, etc.; while all the concerning compounds are synthetic or semisynthetic (besides arsenic lead etc. which have been out of use for a long time right?!)
AFAIK there is no natural source for most of the concerning pesticides/herbicides like glyphosate, chlormequat, paraquat, aminopyralid, maybe synthetic/semisynthetic pyrethrenoids etc. while the much smaller list of "natural" pestidides (pyrethrum, any others?) aren't concerning because they degrade quickly etc.
But I'm also assuming here that "approved for organic use" means "the substance can be trivially extracted from natural sources" which might not be true
Rotenone is another example. It used to be allowed for use in organic farming, but in 2019 it was shown to be dangerous and was banned for organic farming. If one organic pesticide that was once considered harmless turned out to be dangerous, there can be others that we don't know about yet.
ooh good example thanks. yeah it's super scary mitochondrial ~~uncoupler like MPTP and paraquat~~ actually a scary mitochondrial inhibitor? but its soil/water half life is only a few days
It depends. I suspect large organic brands are more likely to be like that.
But locally I've visited some of the small farms we buy produce from, and they use very minimal sprays, or none at all and instead plant companion plants that attract the pests to them instead of the main crop.
It's hard to say "worse", but for a lot of organic alternatives the problem is "more"--it requires significantly more applications/frequencies than synthetic alternatives. This can contribute to run off and groundwater contamination.
> This can contribute to run off and groundwater contamination.
More than straight up synthetic nitrogen fertilizer? Or any of the many other commonly used inputs that stick around for way longer than the organic alternatives?
You sound like you’re not convinced that I actually do this for a living, and continue to make up a reality that suits your preconceptions.
