Science Reporting on Organic Food is Out to Lunch

If there is no records for use how do you know organic producers use more pesticides than conventional farmers? Organic producers don't just spray they use many techniques to help control pests and disease.

allowing for an acceptable level of pest damage;

encouraging predatory beneficial insects to control pests;

encouraging beneficial microorganisms and insects; this by serving them nursery plants and/or an alternative habitat, usually in a form of a shelterbelt, hedgerow, or beetle bank

careful crop selection, choosing disease-resistant varieties

planting companion crops that discourage or divert pests;

using row covers to protect crops during pest migration periods;

using pest regulating plants and biologic pesticides and herbicides

using no-till farming, and no-till farming techniques as false seedbeds

rotating crops to different locations from year to year to interrupt pest reproduction cycles;

Using insect traps to monitor and control insect populations.

Organic agriculture is not just replacing conventional pesticides with organic one as you would like to believe but actually a system that is designed to limit application of pesticides. Organic farmers know that even organic pesticides can be dangerous for themselves and beneficial insects that help to protect and pollinate their crops. Their goal is to not spay at all not to replace one poison for another. You should research you topics more before you write your articles.

scotty lanham of VT 12:12PM September 10, 2012

GREEN DOGMA KILLS OVER A MILLION PEOPLE EACH YEAR

Worldwide malaria deaths may be almost twice as high as previously estimated, a study reports.

The research, published in the British medical journal the Lancet, states that 1.24 million people died from the mosquito-borne disease in 2010.

This compares to a World Health Organization (WHO) estimate for 2010 of 655,000 deaths.

The DDT ban, born of Rachel Carson’s hysteria, has cost the lives of tens of millions of people - mostly children. DDT saved millions of lives during World War II. And despite decades of testing DDT has never been shown to have any ill effects on humans. If our leaders had summoned the political will to use DDT in the one New York county that was infected with West Nile Virus in 1999 we might have been able to stop the spread of the deadly virus to the rest of North America. Now, this killer disease is with us forever - annually killing millions of mammals and birds, and dozens of people. More death and destruction each year than DDT has ever caused (even in the minds of eco-zealots).

Admittedly, some resistance to DDT took place in selected mosquito strains. However, this was the result of widespread agricultural use - not as a result of vector control. Resistance testing can be done in problem areas and DDT or another pesticide may be used if DDT resistance is found. Pesticides can be used in an alternating fashion to prevent resistance.

Recently, Dr. Samuel Koffi Moise, head of Malaria Control in West Africa's Ivory Coast told international news agencies that, nearly 200 children die every day in his country of malaria. He further remarked, that more than nets, "...we need pesticides like DDT."

Furthermore, in his recent book, "An Excellent Powder", Donald Roberts, professor of tropical medicine at the U.S. military's Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, and Richard Tren, head of lobby group Africa Fighting Malaria, argue that DDT is the only effective weapon against the deadly mosquito-borne parasite.

Professor Roberts states, "There are an almost endless list of claims that DDT causes one kind of harm or another but ... with each claim, the evidence that the DDT is the cause is simply not there."

It should be noted here that the inventor of DDT, Paul H. Muller , won the 1948 Noble Prize in Medicine. Why? Because DDT has saved more lives than any other chemical invention in history.

During World War II thousands of U.S. soldiers dosed themselves regularly with the "excellent powder" to prevent vector born disease and entire cities in Asia and Europe were spayed to prevent epidemics. Franklin Roosevelt said millions of lives were saved by this practice and proclaimed that DDT was one of the greatest inventions in history. No human harm has ever been noted.

Finally, go to, "The Lies of Rachel Carson", or, "DDT: A case Study In Scientific Fraud, or "junkscieince.com., for information on DDT/Environmentalist hysteria and the death it causes.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 10:20PM March 03, 2012

It would be nice if US News followed Mr. Gilder's advice and "ask[ed] questions." As reports have recently revealed, he and his PR firm White House Writer's Group are funded by pesticide companies like Syngenta, the maker of gender-bending atrazine. As readers, we deserve that kind of transparency from writers who profess to serve science and journalism.

George Jackson of CA 9:02PM March 02, 2012

Everyday, across the nation, we all pay for the environmental crusade of the “eco-elite”. When a rancher or farmer is forced to stop or curtail operations for one “environmentally correct “ reason or another we all pay in higher food prices. When a utility company can’t produce power because of concerns about nuclear plants or is forced to demolish hydroelectric dams in the name of "salmon habitat restoration - it costs us all in money and recreational venues. Manufacturers of all types products are shackled by huge costs generated by environmental, regulation, litigation and legislation - when you buy your next car, piece of lumber or box of detergent you’ll be paying more.

Consider the deadly DDT ban brought about by Rachel Carson’s dishonest propaganda piece, “Silent Spring”. Now, every year, a million people, mostly children, die from insect born diseases that were once controlled by DDT.

It seems no price is too great for the “Crusaders of Environmental Purity”. That may be true for members of the “eco-elite”. But what about the working people laboring under the ever increasing burden of these costs? Try and explain to a family trying to keep food on the table or staggering under energy costs that it was necessary to spend millions of dollars doing months or even years of studies and building fences or closing roads to protect some weed, insect or salamander!

And, what about the cost in freedom and to the human spirit when access to our lakes, streams, rivers and forests is being lost as the result of draconian environmental regulation?

When the eco-elite demand and litigate that roads and campgrounds be closed do we consider that not everyone is a young, healthy member of the Sierra Club, able to hike many miles into the woods to enjoy nature. Isn’t the disenfranchisement of the handicapped, the infirm, families with young children, the working poor and seniors from the outdoors too high a price to pay?

Is a legacy of closed roads, abandoned campgrounds, fences, outlawed recreational activities. and high fees for what little recreational opportunity remains really what we want to leave future generations?

As with most crusades the environmental movement had well intentioned, perhaps even noble beginnings. But, as they gained power and “political correctness” common sense and moderation were replaced by zealotry and dogma. Now, to say anything against them is blasphemy and political suicide. Think about it, what politician could say even this, “Perhaps the Endangered Species Act and The Clean Water Act need to be moderated in some way.” The environmental lobby would be in the streets, on talk shows as the media held an “inquisition”. The only question would be how to burn the poor bastard at the stake in an “eco- friendly” manner.

We must, as a nation, reject the notion that no price in money and personal freedom is too great to pay in order to protect every aspect of nature.

Going Green Has Gone Too Far!

R.L. Schaefer of CA 1:05PM March 02, 2012