momoese

Richard

The link you have provided is misleading.

The federal government and state of California regulate all substances used to control pests in agriculture. All such substances are defined by law to be "pesticides". The "certified organic" farms in California and the U.S. are one of the largest groups of pesticide users. They use such things as potassium-free baking powder, pyrethrum oil, sassafras extract, and iron-phosphate to control most pest problems. Please don't equate "pesticide" with "environmental toxins", "synthetic chemicals", etc.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

momoese

I don't need my tax dollars being spent making accusations that I'm not eating enough veggies because I prefer organics even though they use "pesticides".

Nicolas Naranja

The environmental working groups claims about the dirty dozen produce items with pesticides is very misleading, because what they don't tell you is that most produce doesn't have any detectable residues...
Furthermore, as a person that makes a living doing research on pesticides, I can tell you that pesticides have been getting much much safer over the years and that the newest ones pose no risk to humans because they are acting on systems that do not exist in mammals. Most household chemicals and shower products are far more dangerous than the newest pesticides ever dreamt of being.

__________________
Some people go bananas, I went plantains.

momoese

Our government is attacking a non profit watchdog group using our tax dollars. Regardless how you feel about eating conventional vs organic produce this is not justified and I do not want my tax dollars being spent this way. It's just more government intrusion. Who cares what I choose to eat, what I choose to read, or believe for that matter. It's none of their business.

Richard

"Non-profit" means that all the profits go into salaries plus payments to accountants to keep the non-profit status. It also means that our tax dollars are spent paying IRS employees to deal with complicated non-profit tax rules.

The "Environmental Working Group" earns its income by appealing to the sentiments and fears of people rather than providing education about actual pesticide law and practices.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

momoese

First amendment, we are now fighting with our tax dollars against it. Regardless what you think about water being a pesticide, (example from previous discussion) we should not be fighting against our first amendment rights with our own tax dollars.

momoese

Could be new job for you Richard! A non profit pesticide law and practices promotional group.

Richard

I'm not sure how it is a violation of anyone's first amendment rights. No one is being silenced, just a second opinion is being offered. By the way, both of those groups are funded by the government in the same amount, and both of them are a drain on our tax dollars.

Thanks, but I'm already doing this as a for-profit! See for example this article: Beer Is A Synthetic Pesticide.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

momoese

I don't see any government funding in the EWG pie chart? Where do you see this?

About Our Funding | Environmental Working Group

Richard

In an article that circulated a few months ago, I read that the Alliance for Food and Farming had petitioned the CA state legislature for a grant to match the state funding of an environmental group. Their complaint was that the environment group did not contain an agricultural perspective. I assumed this was EWG, but according to the pie chart above I see that you are correct -- unless there is government funding buried in one of the Foundations.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

Nicolas Naranja

I actually wouldn't be totally sure that those are "your" tax dollars at work for that funding either. There are a lot of taxes that growers pay that the growers actually retain some say so as to how they are spent. There are taxes on pesticides and fertilizer for example that are basically earmarked to be spent a certain way. California has the most highly regulated pesticide industry in the country: A pest control advisor has to basically write a prescription for each and every pesticide application...If you want to get into a debate about tax money being wasted there are plenty of examples. If you have ever been part of a municipal or county budget process you would be shocked to see how many non-profit organizations are there with their hands out.

__________________
Some people go bananas, I went plantains.

momoese

I don't doubt that at all.


So you have a group of people (not for profit) with a clear agenda that is anti pesticide, anti poison. They have every right right to say whatever they want without my tax dollars being spent in an effort to dispute those claims.

One might ask why the government is so concerned about the "Dirty Dozen"

Perhaps CDFA Secretary A.G. Kawamura is part of that answer? He's said to have close ties to some very privileged chemical companies.

Or maybe more things like the LBAM spraying debacle which he was involved in?
Powered by Google Docs

Or just the massive amounts of pesticides used and how much the chemicals companies profit from it. Follow the money trail...

Jack Daw

__________________
Thnx to Marcel, Ante, Dr. Chiranjit Parmar and Francesco for the plants I've received.



Zeitgeist - Corporatocracy 101 (~2hrs)

Zeitgeist - Moving Forward (~2.5hrs)

Richard

Actually they are not anti-pesticide. Instead, they are for responsible methods of pest controls, something I fully endorse.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

Nicolas Naranja

You will have to trust me on this one, but there is nothing particularly dangerous about the synthetic pheremone that was used. And there is a generally established procedure used to make sure a pest is eradicated. Even if there is no damage, a quarantine restriction could cost the California economy tens of millions. Every once in a while there is a medfly outbreak down here and if you happen to be in the quarantine zone you have to destroy your fruit and can't sell it until the quarantine is lifted. I suppose maybe in Florida we are a little more accepting of it because we get sprayed every so often for mosquitos. I strongly suggest taking a class to learn about pesticides and how they work. Some people would like to believe that we can get by and survive without protecting your crops in some manner. Even OMRI approved insecticides have risks associated with them. Copper, sulfur and soap can be pretty good skin and eye irritants. As far as the government coming out in opposition to free speech, it's not unusual. The federal government spent a lot of money a few years ago to defeat several measures to legalize marijuana.

__________________
Some people go bananas, I went plantains.

momoese

At the time the LBAM sprayings took place there had been no studies as to it's potential danger to humans. Add to that the lies that were promoted just to get the grants for the "emergency spraying" and you have a large scandal.

I don't know if any further studies have taken place or who may have funded them but that's neither here nor there in what we are talking about.

momoese

They do say they try to help people who can't afford organic produce by providing the shoppers guide to pesticides. It seems they are most concerned about foods that absorb pesticides more easily than others, and foods that carry a film of pesticides on them. I would think that includes even those certified as organic by our government, but then they say this:


So it seems they are not worried about pesticides on organic crops.

I'd like to see them do an organic version of the Dirty Dozen. I think I'll write them.