Great article about the dangers of farming in poor remote areas:
1) Should the use of pesticides be continued?
2) Why hasn't the government of Argentina stepped in more?
3) What effects can this have on us? Why should we care?
4) Do you believe there is a connection to the pesticides and the illnesses? Are they the fault of the manufacturer?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/02/160223-photograph-aixa-argentina-avia-terai-pesticides-glyphosate/
ReplyDeleteMark this one: The government of Argentina hasn't stepped in more because stopping the use of pesticides would hurt their economy. With stronger pesticide control, farmers would lose more crops and as a result the price of food would be significantly higher. If Argentina was the only country to step in more, than other countries would start buying more from the neighbouring countries, and Argentina would lose a lot of money. We should care because it is affecting others lives, and we should be caring about what is happening to other people. The whole world should be concerned because the pesticides are creating illnesses in children. Many studies have linked ADHD and other neurobehavioral defects to the enzymes found in the most common pesticides (link 1 & 2). The laws around pesticides have made it very difficult for a parent to feed their children food that is free of harmful chemicals. Even organic produce contain pesticides (link 3). I believe the solution for healthier foods while maintaining money is a very tricky one. If every farmer stopped pesticides and fungicides and only sold locally, it would not work. Countries with harsh winters would greatly struggle. I'm not sure we can place the blame on anyone because we all play a role in this problem. That is why everyone is responsible for helping to find the solution. This is why it is difficult to say if we should stop using pesticides. Perhaps the solution will be that we invent safer pesticides. At the moment, I can not foresee any manufacturer stopping the use of pesticides because there is too much money to lose.
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21507778
2. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/05/17/peds.2009-3058.full.pdf+html
3. https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html
Clearly, pesticides are very harmful to humans. Even though they are harmful, I agree with Annabelle that it would be too hard for farmers not to use them. Without them, their crops would go bad faster, be eaten by pests, and they would have to charge more money for their crops. It would also hurt the farmers economically. Personally, I think that there is no end to the use of pesticides. Instead, I too believe that their should be a safer pesticide to use that does not cause harm to humans, crops, or animals.
DeleteI agree with Annabelle and Rianne. Pesticides have shown very negative effects on people. But without them the Argentinian economy would take a huge down fall and that would harm the people just as much. Pesticides do have alot of negatives, but they are helpful and provide people with affordable food. I think the only thing to do in this situation is to create a pesticide that would not be harmful to people and the surrounding ecosystem.
DeleteI agree with your opinion on pesticides, Annabelle. Pesticides obviously do have a negative affect on human health, but other options for food that I found are both difficult and concerning. Growing food naturally is very unlikely to happen to due the lessened yield and the growing demand. Another expanding concept is genetically modified food. There are numerous problems that I see with this method.
DeleteFor the consumers:
-GMO’s have not been tested in the long term, so it can’t be said they are 100% safe to consume
-Genetic modification often adds proteins that weren't indigenous to the initial animal or plant, so this can cause allergic reactions in some people.
-Some features in GMOs can make you have a decreased antibiotic efficacy.
For the environment:
-Could manipulate the food chain
-Could result in pests becoming resistant to the GMO’s repellant (creation of a superbug).
-Forces evolution to happen in just one generation
-Conflicts in cross-pollination.
Overall, there seems to be a lack of options on how we can grow enough food, and grow it safely for humans. I am really not sure what method could satisfy both these needs, but
hopefully society and scientists can work together to create a better method.
Sources:
12U Bio class.
I agree with Annabelle that we need to stop supporting countries that use these chemicals. they are causing underdevelopment in children and are effecting lives. if the public only supported organic foods than these pesticide companies would loose business and save lives.
DeleteMark this one: The use of toxic pesticides to manage pest problems, to improve crop growth and speed has become a common practice around the world. The government of Argentina in my opinion, has not “stepped” in as much as they can is due to the fact that stopping the use of pesticides could damage their economy greatly. If their economy becomes damaged they would be forced to buy from neighbouring countries which would be very expensive for them to purchase, as well as losing business in their own country. Everyone should care about this problem because it affects everyone eventually in some way. Pesticides have been linked to a number of human health hazards, varying from short-term impacts such as headaches and nausea to chronic impacts like cancer, reproductive harm, and endocrine disruption. Chronic health effects may occur years after even minimal exposure to pesticides in the environment, or result from the pesticide residues which we ingest through our food and water. For example, in May 2010, scientists from the University of Montreal and Harvard University released a study that found that exposure to pesticide residues on vegetables and fruit may double a child’s risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a condition that can cause inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity in children. Children are predominantly vulnerable to the hazards connected with pesticide use. There is now extensive scientific evidence that the human brain is not fully formed until age 12, and childhood exposure to some of the most common pesticides on the market may greatly impact the development of the central nervous system. i agree strongly with these statements. The solution to our pest and weed problems lies in non-toxic and cultural methods of agriculture. Nowadays there is even pesticides in organic food. There is no escaping it. if everyone were to stop the use of pesticides I’m convinced that this wouldn't be a reasonable solution because countries who cannot provide proper conditions would suffer. Everyone is affected by the use of pesticides, therefore we need to work together as a whole in order to come up with an alternative. Pesticides are great for the growth of food but not for humans health.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.toxicsaction.org/problems-and-solutions/pesticides
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMark this one:
ReplyDeleteI believe that pesticides have definitely increased agricultural production and productivity. However, many negative situations from the use of pesticides, has also increased. I think that the negative effects of these pesticides are greater because they are specifically harming people. It was found that in the United States, around 23 people die each year because of the use of pesticides. Another major negative effect that has risen because of these pesticides is the unintentional destruction of many predators of pests. This is resulting in the virulence of many species of agricultural pests. Pesticides are also known to damage agricultural land, fisheries, and many other things.
The government of Argentina probably has not stepped in more because of the larger amount of plant growth that they are making. The government is finding the money aspect more important than the effect these pesticides are having on people. Without these pesticides, most food (vegetables, fruits) would not look as nice and there would be less people buying. I also don’t think that the government has stepped in that much because it has not become such a public issue and most people do not understand the harm in pesticides.
Realistically, I think that it would be difficult to completely get rid of pesticides. When people see fruits or vegetables that don’t look perfect they tend to not eat it. Pesticides are something that help make the food look perfect and I think that there would definitely be less purchasing of foods if they did not look 100%. It is tough because there are so many foods that contain some sort of pesticide, even organic products. Overall I think that there should be some sort of limit of pesticides used so that people would not be harmed, but I do think pesticide may be necessary to a certain extent.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmes/22732070/
www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/effects-of-pesticides/
I agree fully that the cons of pesticides are greater than the pros. When we buy chicken we don't care so much what it looks like, find one for a good price, cut some of the fat off and cook the chicken. But when it comes to fruits and vegetables we only want the brightest, juiciest looking ones. The amount of chemicals that are needed to get this image is unreal and very unhealthy. I would much rather eat a tomato with a weird green spot than something that can cause me harm. I also agree that the government is enjoying the money of their produce and keeping the chemicals "hush hush". I believe that there should be tougher regulations on the chemicals used for things we consume. Not just for us, but for the other organisms that are consuming toxic pesticides. As females we are supposed to limit our fish intake because of the chemicals fish hold. Pesticides are just adding these chemicals to rivers and lakes, increasing the toxicity of fish. I hope that their government starts to take notice to the pesticides and implement some tougher regulations.
DeleteI agree the cons are more impactful then the pros. Pesticides have becoming apart of our society deeply and it is effecting our lives, our technology, our planet, and our diseases. Abnormalities are becoming more and more common in people and animals because of these pesticides. I understand that they preserve more food, but bugs and pests are adapting to these pesticides and the more they adapt, the worse the pesticide will become.
DeleteIt's crazy how much people care what food looks like. Fruits and veggies that don't look "perfect" are thrown out and that's so sad that in addition to making crops grow larger and faster we also use pesticides to make sure the crops look good. I agree with Monica that pesticides are sort of necessary to a certain level but I think I read somewhere that there are alternatives to using pesticides. Some such as using pests against pests or using organic, natural pesticides. These ideas could maybe be brought up in Avia Terai to better the toxicity of the community's water problem and fields.
ReplyDeleteMark this:
ReplyDeleteWhile pesticides are very useful and it would be very hard without them I believe that we should be at least trying more eco friendly options and the use of pesticides should be banned of at least limited, and products grown that have come in contact with pesticides should be labeled. Pesticides have many negative affects on our bodies, the environment and to the local economy.
Pesticides have been known to cause birth defects and other health problems, they hurt many animals/insects in order to keep them away, a well known kind being honey bees, and they hurt local economy's because large businesses tend to buy out the small/local businesses.
Reading the article we can not blame the manufacturer or pesticide for the illness until it's proven, but it is a likely cause.
Pesticides are used far and wide by farmers to increase the amount of crops they cultivate. The exact definition of pesticides is: a substance used for destroying insects or other organisms harmful to cultivated plants or to animals. They may help us gain more of a profit from our crops, but they are harmful to some insects and plants. If they are harmful to insects and other plants how do we know that they aren't harmful to humans? How much scientific research has really been done to prove that pesticides are safe for humans? In my opinion I don't believe the use of pesticides should be continued, though it may be difficult. There are many alternative options to reduce the amount of pests that come in contact with crops that are sustainable which include: crop rotation, poly-culture, trap crops, Entomopathogenic fungi, Pheromones, and The release of other organisms, such as natural pest predators and parasites. With all of these alternative methods it is wondered why the Argentinian government has not stepped in. The largest reason that they haven't stepped in is due to the ease of pesticide. Though there are many alternatives to the pesticides used in Argentina, none are 100% effective. If they lessened the amount of crops being exported to other countries it could have a very negative result on their economy. So is it really worth it to remove the use of pesticides even if it has a negative consequence on the economy? Yes. It is discussed that pesticides are linked to several diseases such as the ones discussed in the article, they include: asthma, autism and learning disabilities, birth defects and reproductive dysfunction, diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, and several types of cancer. This is alarming and though it is not scientifically proven that pesticides cause these life-altering diseases it is still something the average consumer needs to know. We cannot guarantee that a smoker's lung cancer is caused by the inhalation of several cigarettes per day, but it is definitely assumed and the same is true for pesticides. It is stated in the "Organic Consumers" that studies have indicated a dramatic increase in chronic illnesses among people exposed to pesticides. The scientific proof isn't completely there but with the increase in chronic illnesses is definitely pointing in one direction, and that is pesticides.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.southernstates.com/articles/pesticide-alternatives.aspx
https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/wide-range-diseases-linked-pesticides
I completely agree with Sam. I don't think that chemicals should be sprayed onto the food that we eat and the crops that a society or country relies on. It's really sad how dependent we have become on altering our food. Not only this, but the other day on the news I heard that pesticides are the cause behind our bee population - which, by the way, is going extinct. It's actually scary and sad, because there must be other ways that we could prevent food decay or rot without synthetic sprays.
DeleteMark please:
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the adverse effects of farming on the poor town of Avia Terai, located in Argentina. Although conditions have improved since a photograph of a young girl (with benign tumors and blotches covering her skin) had been publicized, pesticide use is still occurring—thus, concerns remain. Note that the community does not have running water, which does not help residents’ health conditions. Studies were conducted that show correlations between chemicals used in agriculture and a number of diseases. Chemicals routinely contaminate homes, classrooms, and drinking water. Argentina is the world’s third largest producer of genetically modified (GM) crops, predominantly soybeans engineered to resist the herbicide glyphosate. Shockingly (sarcasm), Monsanto manufactures the glyphosate and GM seeds. And of course, Monsanto disagrees with statements linking their products to health issues. In an article (link below), Monsanto emphasizes that “glyphosate is safe” and there is “no evidence of carcinogenicity”. The government of Argentina has not stepped in more for the obvious reason: the impacts of agriculture on the country’s economy. Foreign exchange of soybeans boosts the economy and is Argentina’s primary source of foreign currency.
Based on the evidence, I believe there is a connection to the pesticides and the illnesses. “Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human carcinogen” (Myers). This and many other negative impacts of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are examined in the PMC article below. The borders of Argentina do not confine this issue--this issue affects us too. The use of GBHs has increased worldwide and Glyphosate residues are found in many foods. Monsanto is an extremely powerful company; some say they run the world.
http://monsantoblog.com/2013/10/21/argentina-and-pesticides/
Deletehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/
Pesticides are certainly a tricky topic to discuss due to the long list of pros and cons. However, after reading the article and the posts, I am seeing more cons. I agree with Courtney stating that pesticide use should be limited if and when possible.
ReplyDeletePesticides may or may not pose health risks to people however the negative affects have been proven on the environment. Canada has implemented strong measures in regards to pesticides (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/reg-pesticide/index-eng.php) however very few of the regulations look at the effect on a human body.
Pesticides have been suggested as the cause of illness or other health problems in humans. We worry about the effect on animals/insects but refuse to research the effects on ourselves. We cannot be sure the effects unless we research them.
Interesting that only one person mentioned the other major issue with all of this...lack of clean running water. That is a huge deal. Pesticides provide so much food for people in areas that are not supposed to have food but they come at a huge cost. Where is the balance?
ReplyDelete