How Synthetic Compete Organic in the Field of Farming

Organic produce has become increasingly popular in recent years, as consumers have grown more health conscious and environmentally aware. Many stores and supermarkets now have large sections devoted to organic fruits and vegetables.

It would seem illogical that organic compounds are all more sustainable than synthetics, or vice versa.  The term "organic" has a health halo, biasing many people toward believing organic growing techniques are best for the environment.

Governmental policies that encourage the use of organic pesticides, even when their efficacy hasn't been rigorously proven, are based on questionable science that may at times defeat the intent a more sustainable future. Rebecca Hallett (University of Guelph, Canada) and coworkers have reported an example of soybean aphid management wherein organic pesticides were more harmful than synthetic pesticides.

When you test synthetic chemicals for their ability to cause cancer, you find that about half of them are carcinogenic.

Until recently, nobody bothered to look at natural chemicals (such as organic pesticides), because it was assumed that they posed little risk. But when the studies were done, the results were somewhat shocking: you find that about half of the natural chemicals studied are carcinogenic as well.

This is a case where everyone (consumers, farmers, researchers) made the same, dangerous mistake. We assumed that "natural" chemicals were automatically better and safer than synthetic materials, and we were wrong. It's important that we be more prudent in our acceptance of "natural" as being innocuous and harmless.

Organic farming practices have greatly advanced the use of non-chemical means to control pests, as mentioned earlier.Unfortunately, these non-chemical methods do not always provide enough protection, and it's necessary to use chemical pesticides.

How do organic pesticides compare with conventional pesticides?

A recent study quoted in berkeley site compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.

It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.

It should be noted, however, that we don't know for certain which system is more harmful. This is because we do not look at organic pesticides the same way that we look at conventional pesticides. We don't know how long these organic pesticides persist in the environment, or the full extent of their effects.

When you look at lists of pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, you find warnings such as, "Use with caution. The toxicological effects of [organic pesticide X] are largely unknown," or "Its persistence in the soil is unknown." Again, researchers haven't bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides because it is assumed that "natural" chemicals are automatically safe.

Organic farms do indeed (generally) use pesticides, they just aren't synthetically made, while conventional farms can use both natural and synthetics.

For more related topic, check out the site below: