By Dr. Haim Habib, Weizmann Institute courtesy of Dodson Online * Organic farming is a beautiful dream, and in a utopian world it might have worked, the problem is that all kinds of insects, fungi, worms and other pests are spoiling our utopian world. Organic farming has many limitations beyond their high cost.
Tonight (Thursday) there was an investigation presented by Galit Gutman on Channel 2 on the issue of pesticides that make their way into the vegetables we eat under the title "Caution vegetables". Dr. Erez Gerti, my colleague, editor of the Dodison-online website, explains that there were important findings about pesticide deviations from the standard, and during the investigation they also came to important recommendations to align with the European standard, but that's where the good part ends. The message that emerges from the article is that pesticides, no matter what the dose, are long-term poisoning. The message came from there that organic farming is the right way. And in the bottom line, the message came from there that we are actually poisoning our children with "conventional" vegetables, and that we are already "done".
Organic farming is a beautiful dream, and in a utopian world it might work, the problem is that all kinds of insects, fungi, worms and other pests spoil the utopian world for us. Organic farming has many limitations beyond their high cost.
A group of researchers from the University of California at Berkeley conducted a study about two years ago Comparison between organic farming output and conventional farming (Nature, March 9, 2012).
The researchers: Verna Zweifert, Navin Ramakotty and Jonathan Foley noted that many reports revealed the need for major changes in the global food system. Agriculture must meet the dual challenge of feeding a growing population that requires meat and high-calorie food, while at the same time reducing the environmental impact.
"Organic agriculture - a system that claims to produce food with minimal harm to the ecosystem, animals and humans is the solution that is often offered. However, the critics comment that organic agriculture yields a lower yield and may require more land to produce the same amount of food compared to conventional agriculture, which will be reflected in the increase of the areas that will grow from the forests and the loss of biodiversity, and thus it actually works against the environmental benefits of organic practices.
The researchers used a meta-analytic analysis method to examine the relative productivity of organic and conventional agriculture in general. The analysis of available data showed that typically an organic field yields a lower yield than a conventional field, however the differences depend on local and systemic characteristics and range from 5% less (in fields irrigated with rainwater and with moderate soil acidity or even moderately alkaline soil, 13% less (when using practices fully organic) and up to 34% less (when the conventional and organic systems are immediately comparable)."
Under special conditions - with good management, certain types of plants and growing conditions - organic agriculture can provide a yield similar to a normal field, but these are exceptional cases. To make organic agriculture an important tool in a sustainable food production system, it is necessary to better understand the factors that reduce productivity, as well as to evaluate the social, environmental and economic effects of a large-scale organic farming system.
However, the critics claim that these figures are biased downwards, because they do not take into account such as the effects of spraying from a conventional field neighboring the organic field, and that the gap may exceed 25%.
And of course we have not covered in this article the opposition to genetically modified food (usually from those on the side of organic agriculture), whose application may actually save on pesticides but at the same time also increase the yield.
Dr. Haim Habib from the Weizmann Institute posted yesterday on the Dodison Online article that deals with in the limitations of organic agriculture
50 תגובות
Coco
"Pesticides or certain chemical substances that are put on vegetables and fruits extend their shelf life" - I guess there is something in this, after all, the pesticides will also protect the vegetables at home. But - it is possible that it is the dust on the vegetables that protects them and not something that is sprayed. It is interesting to do your test with organic vegetables, that way you can see what the source of the protection for the vegetables is.
where animals were fed organic food and alternately non-organic and sprayed food. To my amazement the animals that ate organic died at a younger age and there were many deaths in the animals that ate organic.
As a natural and organic food lover I couldn't believe it and then the explanation came. The non-organic food has harmful species and parasites due to the fact that it is sprayed and they enter the body when eating, which causes health problems.
for miracles,
There is nothing to be done, people like B will not let the facts confuse them, like all the vegans and opponents of progress.
I do agree with him that pesticides are harmful to a certain extent, and I am one of the few people who has a special soap for fruits and vegetables and makes sure to wash them (although probably some of the sprays are absorbed by the fruits and vegetables),
B is also right in that pesticides or certain chemical substances that are put on vegetables and fruits extend their shelf life (at least I conclude this from the fact that if you keep a fruit or vegetable that you have washed in the refrigerator or outside, even if you dried it immediately or it will spoil very quickly compared to a fruit or vegetable not washed.)
What is true is that there is currently no way for every country to grow its vegetables and fruits because of the need for different weather for some fruits and vegetables, in addition there are countries that do not have enough agricultural areas.
What is certain about spraying what is known is this:
1. Pesticides increase productivity.
2. Since the use of pesticides life expectancy has increased significantly, so if it is harmful, it is not terribly harmful.
ב
1) Complete nonsense. The pesticides are designed to increase the yield. They have nothing to do with transportation and storage.
2) In Warsaw 100 years ago there were few people who ate meat that came from afar in the winter.
3) In excellent conditions, you need around a dunam per person. 20 million people need a good agricultural area the size of Israel.
Have you thought deeply about your proposal?
1) The closer the time of eating the vegetables is to the time of picking, the less the need for pesticides will be.
2) Just as vegetables were grown in Warsaw for the last thousand years, so it is possible to continue.
3) A city of 20 million people can grow food with the same methods as food is grown in a village of 20 thousand people.
ב
You confidently claimed that the amount of pesticides would decrease if each country grew its own vegetables.
You also did not clearly explain (at least I, in my stupidity, did not understand) how, for example, in Warsaw, vegetables will grow in the winter. I am
And, you didn't explain how a city of 20 million people would grow enough food for itself.
I know I will be embarrassed, so please explain these 3 points to me.
Are the questions really stupid to you?
Miracles:
On what basis do you ask that?
ב
Based on what you say that?
It was appropriate for each country to grow its own vegetables.
Because then the amount of pesticides would have decreased a lot.
And if every city grows its own vegetables then there will be no need for pesticides at all.
ב
100 years ago there were 1.8 billion people with a life expectancy (white person in the West) of 50.
Until about a hundred years ago, pesticides were not used at all.
And there was enough harvest for everyone.
ב
There is no argument that it is better not to spray. Even the spray manufacturers would agree with this. The problem is cost/benefit. Organic food costs much more because the yield is lower, and because the growing method is more expensive.
There is only one truth.
Unfortunately, we live in an age where everyone has their own "truth". Which he tries to promote as best he can.
gift
exactly. My father did not decide. He gave some sort of counterweight to the article on TV. The article on TV was not scientific, and rightly so. The intention of the producers was to provoke the subject.
Israelis are much less smart than they think. This is the case with the polio vaccine lately. The number of anti-vaccination articles has increased over the number of pro-vaccination articles. The problem is that, although the articles against it are clearly false, a great many people are afraid of the vaccine, thereby causing serious damage.
Miracles
This is not a specific figure, it is a lack of data that does not appear in the article. Based on the data in the article it is dangerous to draw conclusions about the ability of the world to sustain itself without chemical pesticides and as I wrote above there are many types of organic agriculture and they did not clarify what the author of the article means when he says organic agriculture. Even among organic farmers there are differences of opinion about the right way to grow. Mono or polyculture, biodynamic agriculture, permaculture, grow biointensive and other approaches and methods. All under the heading organic farming. When most of those who deal with them say that they make it possible to feed the world. Who checked? Who will judge? It seems to me that it is too much for my father to decide
Eyal
I know people who do not wash anything…. Whole populations…
There are many sprays called systemic sprays. These are absorbed through the roots, through the leaves, and some even through the seeds (before sowing).
I will tell you something else. Even the water we drink has residues of sprays and medicines.
You're absolutely right that it's extremely important to wash properly - and it's really a shame that they didn't emphasize that, and how much it affects, in the show. As you said, it was worth doing the tests before and after washing.
Regarding the first point, this simply seems a reasonable assessment to me, I was taught all my life that vegetables and fruits should be washed before eating to remove residues of spraying and pesticides, and as far as I know the public has a high awareness of this matter.
Regarding the other two points you raised, precisely because of this I think it was appropriate to carry out the test after the vegetables have been washed, to check if there are still any residues of pesticides left on them or in them - after the washing operation (and I think this is what interests the majority of the public, because most people do wash their vegetables and fruits before eating).
In any case, it should have been mentioned during the program in order not to be misled (I admit that I only saw part of the program, please correct me if this matter did come up there)
Eyal
You are basing it on the fact that everyone washes vegetables, that washing removes all the toxins and that there is no absorption of toxins inside the vegetables.
What is your basis for these 3 claims?
In my opinion, there is a flaw in the test if it really only refers to unwashed vegetables, to tell parents that they are poisoning themselves and their children every day every time they let them eat vegetables, when in fact the test only refers to unwashed vegetables is simply misleading and creating unnecessary panic.
As a consumer of vegetables, I am interested in what pesticides (and in what quantities) remain on the vegetables I eat after I have washed them with water, since that is what most people do. It would have been appropriate to address this point during the program instead of creating a false presentation and instead of creating unnecessary panic among the parents.
I don't think most viewers of the show understood that the test only refers to unwashed vegetables, so it was worth emphasizing this point at least for the sake of fairness.
Eyal
Because in a reformed country there are laws and there are standards. The standard determines the amount of each material that is allowed to be in the products on the shelf at the point of sale.
Some of the material is really washed away, some evaporates and some is absorbed in the food and here is the source of the problem.
Say - a child who takes an apple and eats it without washing, don't you think he should be protected??
Surely this is related, because if the pesticide residues found on the vegetables are those that are easily washed off with water, then why should it interest me as a consumer who washes the vegetables before use?
If someone eats fruits and vegetables without first washing them with water, then he is simply irresponsible, and will complain only to himself.
Eyal
The test was against the standard. What does washing have to do with it?
Tam asked, was the test done on washed vegetables or on vegetables that came straight from the vegetable stand and were not washed at all?
I don't think there is anyone who eats vegetables without first washing them with water, the washing is supposed to remove residues of pesticides left on the fruit or vegetable. I wonder if the vegetables in the test have been washed, this may certainly change the results.
anonymous
right
In my opinion, a solution that will combine the advantages of organic agriculture and conventional agriculture is the use of GMO crops and their cultivation with hydroponic and aeroponic techniques
It is clear that the government is responsible but it is influenced by the farmers and the big companies. Imagine that tomorrow they will legislate that the pest control must be biological. First all the conventional farmers sat down too
Prices will rise in such a way that the citizens will cry out in their place. A real change should first be explanatory and keep the creditor always aware and then gradually remove the conventional materials from use. have to give
More grants and benefits for organic growers. There are many ways to clean your teeth but you have to start doing. The funniest thing is that today in the morning program with Galit they talked about the contaminated vegetables and then they brought her a cake for the broadcast and the whole cake is full of royal food coloring.
anonymous
I think (even though I can't prove it) that the problem is not with the farmers or the pest control companies, but with the ministries of health and agriculture that are simply not doing their job.
gift
Which figure in the article above do you disagree with? In my understanding the article is moderate and balanced.
It should be remembered that until the middle of the XNUMXth century there were one third (!) of the number of people in the world today.
A. Shame on the profanity and pettiness above.
To the point.
There are different types and different methods of agriculture that meet the "organic" definition, so it is difficult to make a real comparison between the approaches. Even today it is possible if you want to grow up to eighty percent of the vegetables and fruits in an ecological, organic way within the cities and avoid transporting pollutants. (Documentation for this exists in the film The Power of a Community)
You need to pay attention to who conducted the research and who financed the research. There is a reasonable chance that we will find the pesticide manufacturing companies there as researchers and financiers. It should also be remembered that until the middle of the twentieth century most of the agriculture was organic.
It seems that the article is just an expression of a personal opinion that is very partially based and quite simplistic. It seems that the debate will not be decided so easily.
It is clear that if only the materials are replaced and not the concept as well, organic farming is less effective. But this is a trade-off that results from a narrow view.
As has already been said here, close to 80% (!) of global agriculture grows food for livestock. Close to 50% (!) of food is thrown in the trash, so said the World Food Organization. Oops! You received a few more million dunams and a lot more produce, which can supply food for the whole world for many years to come. Add to that agriculture that also makes sure that the resources remain for future generations - and here is the answer!
Miracles
I did not generalize about everyone because it is clear that spraying is not everyone's decision. There is a small group that decides our health
Everything I said can be summed up in the fact that money has a serious effect on what is done in every field.
Do you think that the agriculture lie can face all the farmers and the chemical companies together?
Miracles
Even if you disagree with other writers and even if they are wrong, you can answer politely. You also find it appropriate to wash whoever he is, it can be done in a slightly different way. For example, when Rabin was prime minister, he turned to one of the members of the Knesset and said to him: "Don't be Sansho Pansho's means of transportation." What he meant was clear. But the statement was stylish. No need to go low. It can only damage your honor and it's a shame.
anonymous
You blame it on everyone doing everything for money, including harming our health. I said if everyone is like that, then you are like that too.
If you say something… stand by it.
Miracles why do you use profanity?
So how does organic farming really deal with problems of insects, fungi, worms and other pests?
.keep your mouth shut you moron
anonymous
You speak without knowing, and just slander. If everyone is a maniac then you are a maniac too. Is that what you think?
In Europe, it is mandatory to label genetically modified products. Why are they not marked here?
Regarding the response of A
It's not second-class citizens, it's second-class people. There is no trust in the establishment. It's just like Prof. Caruso made a program about vaccines and issued an order not to broadcast. Because everything is money. Get it into your head that there are things that are said and done under the tables and we are not informed. So cool
I don't think the problem is the farmers - the problem is the ministries of agriculture and health that don't move a finger.
In addition - don't forget that one of the reasons for the use of fewer pesticides in the US - is genetic engineering. All the smart Israelis are afraid of this, without understanding. The price is either spraying or growing without spraying which is much, much more expensive.
It is interesting to know that conventional farmers whose produce is intended for export to Europe do take care to spray less so that their produce is not rejected. Why do we have to be second class citizens?
Company sells us.!! It's all money, the pesticide companies need the farmers to spray with their materials.
Regarding the device, this is a scandal!!! Instead of the farmers adapting themselves to the standard then it is easier to adapt the standard to the farmers.
There is no need to import and export vegetables!
Every country can grow the vegetables it needs.
You can spray with biological substances. I wonder what the laboratory results would have been if they had tested the vegetables
in the port before they are extracted
The difference between organic agriculture and agriculture that uses toxins is much deeper and more complex than comparing the yield of an organic field versus a non-organic field.
Because of "a growing population that demands meat" - most of the world's agricultural land is used to grow food for the animals whose meat is eaten, therefore those who eat organic food are usually vegetarians, vegans or low-dose meat eaters. So who is harming the environment?
In practice, the municipalities plant meters. And they take the money to raise them from anyone who can take it from them.
You can grow fruit trees in the streets of the cities in Israel, instead of trees for beauty.
In practice, even if the municipalities plant fruit trees such as oranges and tangerines, they grow bitter varieties on purpose, and are not suitable for food.
Although they take the money to grow them from the residents.