Quite emotional.

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…

D Zaruk starts with an historic fact “During the Great Plague of London (1665-66), the authorities were convinced that the outbreak of bubonic plague was being spread by cats. As cats had then been looked upon by religious leaders as symbols of evil and witchcraft, the crisis created the perfect opportunity for zealots to purge London of this feline scourge. The local authorities had no evidence that the cats were spreading the plague, but via the virtue of precaution, they could be seen to be acting in a time of panic. Resisting public pressure from vocal zealots was not politically expedient, and in any case, who would really care if a few thousand cats were tossed in the Thames. Well the rats thought this was just fine, and as the rat population exploded, so too, obviously, did the plague (spread via rat fleas).”

D Zaruk, even if he approves precaution, “a basic human reaction”, uses an skillfully argued analogy between this historic fact and the current utilisation of the precautionary principle by “religious eco-zealots”

“They killed the bees”: temporary ban of neonicotinoids by EU kills more bees…

“They kill the sperm” with “their alarmist superstition that any man-made chemicals are inherently evil and must be eradicated”.  In EU, “Very few crop protection products will be given clearance from being potential endocrine disruptors (at very low doses) so once these zealots will have succeeded in pushing most products off of the market, farmers will be forced to return to medieval agricultural practices. A victory the environmentalists can be proud of.
They only forget that “if there were an endocrine disruption crisis, the source of the problem would much more likely be from our high exposure to natural endocrine disrupting chemicals found in substances like soybeans and coffee than in any low-dose exposure to well-tested synthetic chemicals.”

“They killed the seeds”, with the destruction of the Golden Rice trials, fortified with Beta-Carotene which provides additional Vitamin A. Despite the fact that “Vitamin A deficiency is a serious disease that causes around 500,000 cases of blindness and 250,000 deaths per year, mostly poor children in developing countries.”

Each of these points are developed, illustrated and argued.

Zaruk concludes: “We are living in times no more enlightened than in London of the 1660s. Science has no voice, reason is optional in policy debates, and fear and panic are spread by activists with big mouths and impassioned missions. Policy-makers, then, like today, choose the path of least resistance: the use of a contrived precautionary principle where defensive action is seen as virtuous and inconsequential. Religious zealots campaign in Brussels for more cat-killing without care for any tragic results.
The leaders who killed the cats during the Great Plague were not themselves tossed into the Thames when the human death toll accelerated. But I would be perfectly happy to toss today’s erroneous zealots into the Zenne, the stinking, rat-infested medieval sewer that flows timelessly through Brussels.”

The EU has published a article summarizing these fundings and a complete report with details for each organization and each action

For example, about « pesticides », Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), receive 150K€ for a work program detailed in five strategic priorities:
– pesticide-free towns;
– reducing the use of pesticides in agriculture;
– restoration (biodiversity and water quality);
– maximum residue levels, combination toxicity and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP);
-green growth in the agricultural sector
These priorities mean these expected outcomes: “Participation in five EU public consultations”, “20 letters sent to the European Commission”, “200 testimonies from individuals concerned about victims of pesticides or from the victims themselves”, “500 local awareness rising events”, …

EU supporting citizens statements, and, why not, minority groups on general issues is understandable. But EU fund also NGOs which directly interfere with the EFSA expertise and/or the UE regulatory process.

The most caricatural example is given in the article summarizing the fundings which states: “In the past, this funding has supported successful campaigns to ban the use of the neonicotinoids, an insecticide that adversely affects bees, and lobbying efforts to end fossil fuel subsidies.”

In “EU: “Transparency – Stop the Good Lobby / Bad Lobby Nonsense”“, we had mentioned the David Zaruk, The Risk Monger, article which demonstrates the unhealthy practises of subsidizing “good” lobbyists.

So, NGOs : “independant” ????

“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…