On the opposite, in “Amish use GLOs, pesticides yet cancer rates remain low”, Genetic Literacy, a scientific pro-GMO website, demonstrates that Amish “use pesticides, and they use genetically modified crops in their fields. Enthusiastically.”
Moreover, “Amish farmers see organic as a new technology, and some are reluctant to adapt to it.”

Common sense get one thing right: Amish have indeed very low cancer rates. The main reasons are :
– Avoidance of tobacco
– Lifestyle : they are more active
– Observation bias due to their refusal of cancer screenings
– Endogamy which favorites genetic diseases, but also genetic advantages. It would be the main reason according to Genetic Literacy.

Main conclusion : keep away from common sense, it could be misconceptions…

Have a look to #bringbackthebees (in English) or ramenonslesabeilles (en français)

This initiative relies on a 2013 TED talk video by Maria Spivak, a bee specialist at Minnesota University (USA). Recent data show a better bee health than told in the talk. In addition, Maria Spivak feed a disputable argument against neonicotinoids. But she stresses the essential role of a diversified and abundant food to make bees happy and healthy..

For sure, it’s also an easy way for promoting the trademark Cheerios. A kind of « greenwashing » in a way.
But this effort to make young people active in a positive way for bee health and well-being may be appreciated.

One could encourage European retail companies to act the same way, instead of inflicting new non-regulatory, non-realistic and counterproductive requirements everyday to growers.

“The story of phosphinothricin, while very interesting, is not unique. […] Between 1997 and 2010, USDA scientists estimate that about 69% of all new pesticide active ingredients registered by the EPA were either natural products, synthetic products derived from natural sources (like phospinothricin), or biological in nature.”

In fact, the word natural “is an often-used marketing term with no clear definition. […] The ‘natural or not‘ distinction can distract from what is really important when discussing pesticides. […] The properties of the compound are far more important, in my opinion, than the source of the compound. […] But there are questions related to the source of the product that can be important. In particular, which has a greater impact, synthesis in the lab? or extraction from natural sources? […] If extracting something from nature means we’ll have a greater negative impact on the environment than we would producing it in a factory, then please give me the synthetic version.

This article is a model pedagogy on « natural » vs « synthetic ». It has to be read…

Les herbicides servent à limiter ce travail particulièrement pénible : le binage…

“Each year 1.3bn tonnes of food, about a third of all that is produced, is wasted.”

“In developing countries there are high levels of what is known as “food loss”, which is unintentional wastage, often due to poor equipment, transportation and infrastructure. In wealthy countries, there are low levels of unintentional losses but high levels of “food waste”, which involves food being thrown away by consumers because they have purchased too much, or by retailers who reject food because of exacting aesthetic standards.”

The article of The Guardian is very visual. That’s the most interesting part.

Les pertes alimentaires par catégories dans le monde (The Guardian)

Nevertheless, in order to fully understand what’s at stake, it would be useful to read “Cutting food waste to feed the world“, an article by FAO of 2011. Here, it can be seen that the food waste challenge is more complex than the simplistic accusation of guilt which is commonly provided by the medias.

There is nothing in the article about agronomy or environment.

About residues, his main argument is based on the work of Bruce Ames. 99.99% of pesticides we eat are natural made by plants to protect themselves.

For more details on the work of Bruce Ames read here, here and  here on ForumPhyto. It’s in French but you may find “nine misconceptions about the causes of cancer” by Loïs Gold and Bruce Ames quite easily on the Internet.

About certification process, H Miller explains that there is a minimal testing, because of the cost, and because “organic farming is process-based, not product-based”.
So “organic agriculture is a “trust-based” or “faith-based” system. With every purchase, they are at risk of the moral hazard that an organic farmer will represent cheaper-to-produce non-organic products as the premium-priced organic product.” And you cannot avoid cheating.

Henry Miller concludes “Organic agriculture is an unscientific, heavily subsidized marketing gimmick that misleads and rips off consumers, both because of the nature of the regulations and cheating. The old saying that you get what you pay for doesn’t apply when you buy overpriced organic products.”

According to T Haspel, agriculture is a matter of pragmatism, of flexibility, of adaptation, especially to climatic and soil conditions: “Heavy use of chemical fertilizers can lead to water-polluting runoff, but that doesn’t mean the best alternative is no chemical fertilizers at all”.

She takes a comparative “look at the good and the bad of the kinds of agricultural approaches that attract the most attention”:
– Organic
– Locally grown food
– Anti-GMO
– Conventional agriculture
She concludes : “Ditch the philosophy. No more unifying principle. Call off the dogma. Instead, think small. […] The appeal of ideas like organic and local is understandable, and there are lots of good reasons to feed yourself and your family that way. It’s when those ideas are used to paint the world’s agricultural landscape in black-and-white that the trouble starts. The solutions to the problem of feeding people and protecting the planet are endlessly and irredeemably gray.”

The whole article is worth reading

COLEACP-PIP is an initiative for the search of Plant Protection solutions for ACP (Africa-Caribbean-Pacific) countries .

In this article (in English), COLEACP, which pilot this initiative, explains the work in progress for a better knowledge of biocontrol solutions.

COLEACP notes : « Minor crops (including fruit, vegetables, and herbs) face a global shortage of plant protection products PPPs).  The lack of registered PPPs on horticultural crops is in some areas threatening yields and product quality, increasing the risk of resistance and illegal uses, and compromising the competitiveness and sustainability of the sector.  On top of this, export horticulture faces increasingly stringent demands from global buyers for food that is of high quality, meets strict product specifications, low (and decreasing) maximum residue limits, as well as evidence of environmentally sound and sustainable production practices.. »

This situation will surely remind something to european growers : Despite a bigger development of biocontrol in Europe, the minor uses issue is, in fact,  a major concern for fruit and vegetables growers…

IR-4 is an USA program dedicated to the minor uses issue in the USA: Since 1963, it has been “the major resource for supplying pest management tools for specialty crop growers by developing research data to support new EPA tolerances and labeled product uses.”

Read the 2014 IR-4 Year End Summary  to understand what is the IR-4 program.

In a testimony, the US farmers and food chain organizations are requesting that the House of representatives (US Parliament) increase the national funding from 11.9M$ in 2015 to 15.9M$ in 2016.

The european situation is very different.
Within the EU, some Members states are making some efforts. In France, for example, the government has funding the “Commission des Usages Orphelins” since 2008. But with poor means.
AT EU level, the  1107/2009 regulation provides the creation of a promotion fund for the minor uses. It has been in place since the beginning of 2015. Its annual budget is 350 000 €.

It is difficult to compare the EU and the US situations : the EU is not a federation, there is also actions which are been driven by each member states. There is also other programs dedicated to the minor uses issue, which is a major issue.

Nevertheless, in the USA, the minor issue is a priority. In the EU, there is some progress to be doneµ.

“Researchers say the causes could include diseases, parasites, trucking stress, pesticides or poor nutrition where drought has reduced flowering plants. Even when rain is abundant, winter does not provide much food.” So the association proposes seeds of mix plants to be sowed in the orchards : “The mix includes a few varieties of mustard, which put out yellow flowers before the almond bloom, and clover, which bear red, white or purple flowers afterward.” Bees can also find water in the orchard. So it’s exactly what bees need : “This is a bee spa.”

In addition the mustard and clover protect the ground from erosion and take up nitrate from fertilizer, reducing the risk of tainted groundwater.

A positive way to enhance the collaboration between growers and beekeepers.

« How vegetables can save the World » is a list is good with eating and growing vegetables:

– Vegetables are powerful disease fighters against obesity, cancer, etc.
– Vegetables are packed with nutrients
– Vegetables are cost-effective
– Vegetables adapt to and combat climate change
– Vegetables are key to nourishing both people and the planet

In short: “Be sure to eat your vegetables! Not only are they nutritious, but they can help heal the food system! ”